Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave)

Ms Margaret Hodge: I wish to present a petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom asking that the House pass the Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave) Bill, which is on the Order Paper today and would end the unfair discrimination experienced by adoptive parents and give them the same maternity rights at work as birth mothers.
In the short space of just over one week since the Bill had its First Reading, the newly formed Adopters Campaign for Equality has secured 1,500 signatures for this petition. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that he wishes to remove barriers to adoption, the petitioners urge the House to take the practical step by passing the Bill, which would end the unjust discrimination against women who cannot bear children and who choose to adopt.

To lie upon the table.

BILL PRESENTED

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Michael Jack, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim presented a Bill to amend the Building Societies Act 1986; to make provision for amalgamating the Building Societies Investor Protection Board and the Deposit Protection Board into a single board and the Building Societies Investor Protection Fund and the Deposit Protection Fund into a single fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 124].

PETITION

Lewisham Hospital (Elective Surgery)

Madam Speaker: We now come to the Orders of the Day and the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill—

Ms Joan Ruddock: On a point of Order, Madam Speaker. I have indicated that I would present a petition this morning. It is on the list, I believe.

Madam Speaker: I was not aware of that, but there is no reason why we should not take it, as the hon. Lady is here.

Ms Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I know that Conservative Members seek a distraction this morning.
I wish to present a petition brought on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). About 1,000 constituents have signed, because they are shocked and angry that all elective surgery has been cancelled at the local hospital in Lewisham. The petition reads:
The petition of the residents of Lewisham and South East London and past and present patients of Lewisham Hospital and their families declares that the Lewisham Hospital is a vital service to the people of Lewisham and South East London. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to reverse the instruction of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority to Lewisham Hospital to cancel all non-urgent admissions scheduled for surgery up to 31st March 1997, and urgently investigate why admissions to the Accident and Emergency Service are 12 per cent. higher than anticipated in the contract with LSLHA.
And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the table.

Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: rose—

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

Notice having been taken that strangers were present, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw.

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. John Austin-Walker: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I inquire what is happening to our proceedings given that more than eight minutes has elapsed since the Division Bell rang?

Madam Speaker: Yes. It has been brought to my attention that the Division bells at Carriage Gates are not working, and the police are not aware that a Division is on. I have therefore allowed another two minutes for the Division, so that Members who wish to vote may do so.

The House having divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 20.

Division No. 86]
[9.37 am


AYES


Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. George Galloway.





NOES


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Luff, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
MacKay, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Maitland, Lady Olga


Congdon, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Conway, Derek
Spink, Dr Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Waller, Gary


Fabricant, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)



Foster, Don (Bath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the business under consideration stood over till the next Sitting.

Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, as a result of that procedural vote,

the Bill is unlikely to make further progress this Session? Can you also help me to understand the mysterious absence of the Labour party in the No Lobby, despite the protestations of support for my Bill from the Opposition Front Bench?

Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is not for me to know who goes into the Division Lobbies—that is not my business. As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman has every opportunity to make progress on his Bill on another occasion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It should also be apparent that, on the morning following the remarkable Wirral, South by-election victory, the Government, whose Bill it really is, were unable to muster more than 20 Members in the Lobby. That is indicative of a Government who are not only incapable of winning by-elections, but—

Madam Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with a point of order.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I checked the annunciator screen yesterday, and this Bill was not mentioned. That misled me greatly, and I had to make inquiries to discover the business. What can be done to ensure that the annunciator screen gives hon. Members the correct information?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. The Bill appeared among the Orders of the Day. Every day it has, quite properly, appeared among the remaining Orders of the Day.

Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Appearing among the remaining Orders of the Day is not sufficient to alert hon. Members to the fact that the Bill is to be the first business of the morning. Can steps be taken to ensure that the annunciator screen gives the proper information?

Madam Speaker: I think that hon. Members must be alert to the business of the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does it not serve the Government right? I took a slightly different view, and did not sign the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), but the proposal should have come, not from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but in a statement from the Home Secretary—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. We must proceed with our business.

Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill

Not amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. David Congdon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I did not expect that we would reach my Bill so early in the morning, but it just goes to show. The Bill was first presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on 20 November. I am pleased to say that at the time I was—and still am—one of its main supporters. It therefore gives me pleasure to move its Third Reading.
The Bill's Second Reading was most ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 13 December. Hansard shows that a full debate was held that morning on this important issue. The Bill's Committee stage on 29 January was somewhat shorter than that of most Bills—I understand that it took a little less than one minute.
The Bill's background is straightforward. It is fair to say that most hon. Members believed that the power to test prisoners for alcohol in prisons already existed, but it did not—hence the Bill. It bridges a gap that exists in the prison rules, bringing them into line with the rules on drug testing that were passed not long ago.
I am sure that we all appreciate how difficult it is to keep control in a prison, and particularly to enforce discipline. The problem must be made greater when drugs or alcohol are present. There is an even bigger problem in open prisons, where prisoners are more frequently placed on temporary release and it is easier for them either to drink off the premises or to get alcohol on to the premises.
There have been some important steps recently to strengthen prison rules. One such rule was passed in 1995, when it was determined that one of the conditions of any prisoner released on licence would be that he must not enter a public house. I am not sure how easy that provision is to enforce, but the condition exists. The power to test prisoners when they come back to prison, having been out on temporary release, will certainly provide a deterrent. The second important change occurred in September 1996, when it was made a proper disciplinary offence to consume alcohol in prisons.
In the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) rightly mentioned another significant impact of having alcohol in prisons. It encourages a prison mafia to use alcohol as a means of controlling other prisoners, a means of exploiting prisoners and, equally importantly, a means of raising money. Those are all reasons for the Bill to be given a Third Reading this morning.
It is difficult to estimate the exact scale of alcohol consumption in prisons. Stills have been discovered in a number of prisons, concealed in remarkable places. They have been discovered in the Wolds prison in East Yorkshire, and in Ashwell prison in Leicestershire.
Equally disturbing is the number of prisoners shown to have an alcohol problem. A survey carried out in 1994 by the National Association of Probation Officers showed that 58 per cent. of prisoners had an alcohol problem.
That should give us all cause for thought, and make us determined to ensure that the Bill receives a Third Reading.
The Bill sends a powerful message to prisoners that drinking alcohol will not be tolerated in prison. That is a power that many hon. Members thought already existed. The Bill is straightforward, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I rise in support of the Bill. It is surprising to many hon. Members and to those outside that its provisions are not already law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said, there already exists similar legislation to control the abuse of drugs.
Last Friday, I visited a young offenders institution three miles south of Lichfield called Swinfen Hall young offenders institution, where I spoke to the governor, Mrs. Jacqui Francis, and met members of staff and inmates. I told Mrs. Francis that I wanted to take part in this debate, and she kindly gave me her views on the Bill. It is important that people should know the views of those on the ground who actually run our prisons. Mrs. Francis writes:
Historically the major form of substance abuse in prisons has been the brewing and consumption of hooch. The visible consequences are aggression, bullying, assaults, fights, resistance to authority and, occasionally, alcohol poisoning. Whilst the resources invested in combating drug use have paid dividends, resources committed to eliminating alcohol abuse would pay more.
In many ways, therefore, she feels that the Bill is more important than previous drug-control Bills.
Mrs. Francis points out:
Mandatory drug testing has reduced the incidence of recreational drug use. There is every reason to believe that, with appropriate sanctions, alcohol testing would have a similar impact.
There is some evidence, most notably in category C and D prisons, that prisoners who have been forced off drugs by MDT (Mandatory Drug Testing) have turned, or returned, to alcohol as a substitute.
She says, and I agree:
This is an unfortunate substitute since it is more likely to lead to aggressive behaviour and control problems.
Surely that must be particularly true in young offenders institutions, where the inmates are between the ages of 16 and 21.
Mrs. Francis continues:
The facility to test would be particularly useful after temporary release"—
this point is specifically addressed in the Bill—
outside work or social visits where prisoners may have the opportunity to access alcohol. At present"—
this is extraordinary—
whatever suspicion or indication of inebriation there may be, prison staff are impotent to take action, and prisoners know this.
She told me that sometimes people have returned to the prison obviously drunk, yet prison officers have been unable to do anything about it.
It is really is extraordinary that it has taken so long for the Bill to be introduced. Mrs. Francis ends her letter thus:
Alcohol intake continues to play a very large part in the commission of criminal offences. The Prison Service is not effectively able to fulfil its purpose of confronting offending behaviour if it has no means of identifying and preventing continuing alcohol abuse.


I pay tribute to Mrs. Jacqui Francis and to her dedicated staff and motivated auxiliaries. Their work will be helped, and the safety of inmates will be ensured, by the passing of the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the Bill. For some time, I have taken a considerable interest in the management of prisons. Indeed, I introduced what became the Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995 and when researching and preparing for that legislation, which dealt with the problem of prisoners failing to return to prison on time, I became aware of other discipline problems.
The significance of this Bill is that it is a natural development from tackling the problem of drugs, and I am pleased that we already have on the statute book means whereby prisons can institute mandatory drug testing. That will undoubtedly be part of a wider programme to tackle a modern curse, which destroys people's lives. What people do not realise is that alcohol can do the same.
The problem is not as acute in secure prisons as in open prisons. I have two prisons on the edge of my constituency—Downview for long-term prisoners and Highdown for remand prisoners—and in both there is a rigorous system of searching prisoners and their visitors, so it is difficult to bring in alcohol. In addition, prisoners are not going in and out of the prison.
There is, however, a real problem in open prisons, which, by their very nature, operate a different and more relaxed regime. The purpose is to enable prisoners who have perhaps already served most of a long sentence to prepare themselves for life outside. Many are given temporary releases, which can be for several different reasons. The prisoners may be going out for training or for a job interview; or they may be returning to their families to begin the rehabilitation process of re-entering the community. Sometimes they are away as long as four days.
When they go out, some prisoners go on an alcoholic binge. The difficulty is that, although on a four-day release they might have time to sober up on the final day before returning to prison, they very often do not do so. They can come back having cruised around local pubs and drunk an excess of alcohol, with the result not only that are they intoxicated, which is unpleasant in itself, but that they intimidate local communities.
We have to give special consideration to communities in the hinterland of an open prison, and it is right that we should give careful attention to the problem of prisoners and alcohol. When an intoxicated prisoner returns to gaol, he can become aggressive and difficult to handle; and he can create a breakdown in discipline or incite others to misbehave. The good management of a prison means that all inmates must live an orderly life—that is beneficial not only to the management of the prison as a whole, but to the prisoners' long-term rehabilitation programme.
Open prisons have been trying to tackle the problem of alcohol, but have been frustrated in their efforts. Ford open prison was experiencing such an acute problem that it introduced its own programme of alcohol testing.

An off-the-shelf meter for measuring alcohol levels was bought, and staff used it, but then, to their amazement, they discovered that the testing was outside the law, and they had to stop. It was interesting that, during that time, the use of testing deterred inmates from returning drunk, trying to smuggle drink in, or trying to create their own secret stills.

Mr. Fabricant: Was the experience of the governor and officers of Ford open prison—with which I am familiar, having originally come from a part of Sussex that is not too far from Ford—similar to that of Swinfen, where the introduction of mandatory drug testing has caused prisoners to switch over to alcohol consumption, with the result that the problem of inebriation has become worse?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful information, of which I had not been aware. It is logical that that could be the result, so it is important that we should block off another avenue of abuse.
At Ford open prison, they had to stop alcohol testing, but it was a deterrent when in use—the alcohol problem went down. When staff from my office spoke to the governor of Ford open prison, he welcomed the Bill very keenly indeed.
If prisoners know, not only that they will be tested for alcohol abuse, but that punishment will follow, it acts as a deterrent. The sanctions open to a prison governor may be loss of privileges or even loss of remission. Those are powerful sanctions, which are an important and effective deterrent.
Not only do we want a deterrent factor—a discipline factor—but if an inmate has an alcohol problem, alcohol testing will reveal the problem and it can be treated. After all, we regard prisons not just as a means of removing unsociable people from the community but as a means of rehabilitating them, to return them to the community in a position in which they can make a contribution rather than create all the social ills that we have been so aware of.
I welcome the Bill, which I believe is very significant. I was amazed that it had not come into being already, but, as in all things in life, we learn through experience where the loopholes are. I have absolutely no doubt that this small Bill is significant and will play its a key role in discipline in prisons.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I shall speak in an Adjournment debate on sanctions against Libya and Iraq later, I was interested in the Bill—at first because I wanted to know how long the debate might last—and asked what the issues were. My curiosity was aroused, and I spoke to some prison officers, who said one thing above all others: "There may be abuses, but please don't think that that is the rule." In most prisons, there is a proper regime. There may be mistakes, and the Bill may be a very proper Bill to introduce, but it would be unfortunate if the impression were given that there was great abuse and misuse in all our prisons.
As one who, 25 years ago, introduced under the ten-minute rule Medical Inspection (Evidence of Drug-taking) (School Pupils) Bill in 1971, I know that there are many hazards in this complex subject, but I


would not oppose the Bill; I merely caution that the examples that have been cited do not represent the common situation in our prisons.

Dr. Robert Spink: My constituents agree with the Home Secretary that prison should be an austere but decent place, and that the emphasis in prison should be on reform, education and the preparation of prisoners for their return into society as decent members of that society. However, prisons need to be a real deterrent, and that means that they must punish, so that career criminals will not want to return to prisons and repeat burglars and repeat rapists will not accept prison as a mid-career break—a price to be paid for the career they have decided to follow, a period for recovery and relaxation, a period for planning further villainy when they get out, while they take an Open university degree in the relative comfort of their prison cells.
Not to put too fine a point on it, my constituents want more barbed wire in and around prisons. They want glass screens between prison visitors and inmates, so that drugs are not passed. They want fewer television sets in prisons, fewer snooker rooms—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide. This is the Third Reading debate, and he should confine his remarks to the subject of the Bill.

Dr. Spink: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point of the debate is that people want fewer drugs and less access to and use of alcohol in prisons, and that was the point that I was making.
Prisoners must be kept away from alcohol; that makes sense. It makes sense to close that loophole, which we were all surprised to know existed, by allowing prison staff to test for alcohol. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on choosing the Bill when he was so fortunate in the ballot for private Member's Bills, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) for doing the hard work on it.
A prison governor said that some inmates returned from home leave or temporary release worse the wear from drink, even though prison rules stated that, while they were on release, they must not enter licensed premises or betting shops or consume alcohol. We need to give prison staff like that governor the ability to do the necessary tests, so that they can control the actions of prisoners when they are away; I shall say more about that later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), the Minister of State, Home Office, is one of the best prisons Ministers ever—indeed, one of the best Members ever. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet that she had visited more prisons each month in her career than any prisons Minister, which shows how very much she cares. She is very keen for this measure to reach the statute book so that prisons can become safer places for their inmates. She cares not only about prison inmates but about the rest of society—the victims and potential victims of the villains who seem too often to languish in the relative comfort of our gaols, and should be prevented from doing so under the influence of alcohol.

Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend said an important word just now when he talked about making prisons "safer".

Does he agree with the point that I made and that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made on Second Reading—that a key aspect of making prisons safer for prisoners is to avoid drugs and alcohol being available to be used by some prisoners as a means of exercising control over, and extorting money from, other prisoners?

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I shall discuss in detail later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone very much wants the power to test for alcohol in prisons, and I say, let the House give her the tools so she can do the job.

Mr. Fabricant: Very Churchillian. [Interruption.]

Dr. Spink: I am attempting to thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
David Roddan, general secretary of the Prison Governors Association, said that most inmates would welcome the breath tests, because drunken prisoners become troublemakers. He said:
We support this initiative because prisoners who consume alcohol or get drunk in the local community damage the relationship of trust between the prison and the community. It is also not in the interest of the rehabilitation of prisoners
to allow them to consume alcohol.
The measure will improve the ability of prison staff to control the culture of prisons, which is often negative. It will therefore help prisoners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said, it will inhibit the prison mafias from growing, because alcohol is one of the key currencies used in prisons; thus the Bill will make prisons a safer place for inmates. Last year, on a visit to Chelmsford prison, I saw for myself that alcohol is a key factor in the negative prison culture.
Mandatory drug testing has proved very successful, and has significantly reduced the use of drugs in prison. In 1995, in some prisons, a drugs testing trial was conducted, in which two thirds of prisoners tested positive for drugs. That is a remarkable and disgraceful fact. In 1996, 34,496 prisoners were tested up to July, and only 30 per cent. tested positive, which shows that mandatory testing is working. We must go further, and cut off the supply, not merely of drugs but of alcohol, so the Bill is a most important measure. Importantly, of the 34,496 prisoners tested up to July, not one tried to refuse the test: the House should dwell on that important fact.
The Bill is an excellent measure and I wish it fair wind—it should have been on the statute book many years ago. I trust that the House will vote in favour of it today.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am not clear about the extent to which alcohol is a problem in prisons. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that practice might vary a lot from one prison to another. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department could comment on that.
My impression of the Prison Service is that performance is pretty patchy, certainly when it comes to the quality of management. We have taken great steps forward in the past few years. I was a keen supporter of establishing the service as an executive agency, with its


own director general, because I thought that that would help it to focus on the need for good quality management. We sometimes underestimate the problems that managers and prison officers face in trying to control a difficult regime, so I can well understand why the hon. Members who have supported the Bill feel that it is right to give the prison authorities this power. Clearly, discipline is vitally important in a prison, and the power will add to the range of powers that prison governors already have to ensure that there is a sensible disciplinary regime.
As I understand it, the alcohol problem can arise when prisoners are out for a short time and drink too much—or drink at all—in open prisons, where it is easier to introduce alcohol and, in some cases, in closed prisons where there are stills for the illicit production of alcohol. The power should be introduced, but before we give the Bill a Third Reading it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us an indication of the extent of the problem. I suspect that it varies a lot from one prison to another. The quality of management is improving and it is important that we give prison governors more independence than they have perhaps had. That is what the Director General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt, is attempting to do.
Secondly, the Bill states that there will be no cost to the public funds. Although I suppose that that must be right, or at any rate that the costs will be minimal, I understand that the meter required for testing can cost £600 or £700, and I do not know how many the service will require. It seems, therefore, that there may be some costs and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can comment on that and on the extent of the problem.
Having said that, it is important for us to support both management and prison officers. Sometimes, we underestimate the difficult task that they have to do—it is a demanding job. We should give them every support, and the Bill certainly does that.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, as this is an important issue. In the past five years, I have found—on the doorstep and in general—that the public are more concerned about law and order than any other issue. During my time as a Member of Parliament, I have held three public meetings on the issue and each was well attended. Members of the public certainly have left me in no doubt that they want more and stronger Government measures to deal with law and order problems, and that is what they have had in the past five years.
As for Bill, we are talking about people who have committed crimes and are serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons. The thought that people who have been convicted of a crime, no matter how serious, are able to take alcohol while in prison or on temporary licence, would greatly alarm a number of my constituents.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who promoted the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who introduced it and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who moved the Third Reading. We must get the Bill enacted as quickly as possible, so that we give the authorities that are looking

after our prisoners the tools they need to ensure that alcohol does not become a problem while people are in prison. Surveys show that alcohol can be a problem for people before they go into prison. Indeed, for a number, it may well be the cause of their going into prison in the first place. One survey in 1994 revealed that 58 per cent. of prisoners have a severe drink problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) told us what prisons are supposed to be about and his words would strike a chord with many people. As well as education, the role of prisons is to help those who are in prison. We need to see what we can do to assist those who have a severe drink or drug problem while they are in prison.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must also help the prisoners who suffer not from inebriation but from the aggression of other prisoners who are drunk? Does he not think it a strange irony that some prison governors have said that the prisoners who used to suffer the effects of drug-taking—who were, at the very least, quiet—have been driven to consume alcohol as a result of mandatory drug testing, which has caused aggression towards innocent prisoners, if any prisoner can be innocent? That is causing a real problem in prisons.

Mr. Evans: Yes, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who said that every prisoner is a volunteer—the fact that prisoners have committed crimes means that they volunteered to enter prison—but prisons can become pressure cookers. There is pressure between the criminals, some of whom can be violent—I am delighted that they are not walking the streets—and can have drug and other problems. Drink will not help them in prison. We have a duty to ensure that prisoners are not the target of other prisoners who are acting under the influence of alcohol.
One other thing disturbs me. Prisoners are one side of the story, but the people who work on our behalf to ensure that the prison population, which is approaching 60,000, is not walking the streets, also need our protection. Prison officers are making our daily lives that much safer and the last thing that we want is for them to be the targets of prisoners who are suffering from taking alcohol. We must make certain that we give prison officers the rightful protection that they deserve.
I find it difficult to believe that one could have hooch and that alcohol could be distilled and circulated in prison—perhaps it happens in prisons with lax regimes. It is difficult to believe that we do not have sufficient security within our prisons to ensure that that does not happen and that, if it does, it is stamped out immediately. I would hope that any prisoners caught distilling their own alcohol would feel the firm hand of the law and be given a further sentence on top of their original sentence.
Another problem is that of prisoners who come out of prison on temporary licence or for some other reason—perhaps because they are approaching the end of their term and we want to rehabilitate them. The temptation for some of those offenders, who may have been locked away for three or four years, particularly when they meet old colleagues and friends, is to make for the nearest pub. They might be out of prison for only a short period and go on a drinking binge. We must ensure that, when they return to prison, prison officers have the power to test


them for alcohol, particularly when it is apparent that they have been drinking. Indeed, prison officers should be given the same power as they now have, thanks to the Government, to test for drugs.
Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have spent some of my time over the past five years visiting some of our prisons. I went to Strangeways in Manchester after the riots. Another point on which one might care to reflect is that some of the prison riots in the past few years may have been drink-related. We should take into account the fact that that is how they may have started in the first place.
I have also been to Preston prison just outside my constituency and to a young offenders prison, Lancaster Farms, in Lancaster to look at that regime. Two of the three prisons that I have visited have had large sums spent on them to ensure not that they are the most austere prisons but that they are places where offenders are sent for a period, and where, as well as being punished, they receive the direction, education and discipline that they failed to receive when they were in society.
I met a number of people who work within those prisons and I want to ensure that, particularly in young offenders institutions, they are given the tools to let offenders know that, if they take alcohol, they will be tested and will face punishment if they are found guilty of taking it.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the positive environment of education, training, development and changing prisoners' attitudes cannot take place successfully within a prison if prisoners have access to alcohol? Removing prisoners' ability to have access to alcohol by introducing a testing power will help the reforming ability of prisons and thereby help society as well as individual prisoners.

Mr. Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend. Some prisoners might never have gone a day without drinking alcohol when they were out in society, and their severe alcoholic problem might have led to a life of crime. We must ensure that, while such offenders are in prison, they are immersed in a regime whereby they do not have access to one of the elements that led to the problem in the first place. We must help to clean up some of our prisons. We have done so on the drugs front; if we can do it on the alcohol front as well, that will be extremely important.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend tempts me to intervene again by mentioning drugs. He will be aware, as we all are, that a high proportion of the first use of drugs takes place under the influence of alcohol. If we cut off the supply of alcohol through the power to test for it in prisons, we can stop prisoners coming under the influence of alcohol, making misjudgments and becoming involved in drugs. In that way, we can help both prisoners and society at large.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem of creating a mafia within prisons was mentioned earlier. Some individuals within prisons are not the sort of people with whom one would wish to mix ordinarily, so for some prisoners to have to mix with such people, particularly if they have the power of alcohol and drugs,

adds to the problem within prisons. I return to the point that I made earlier: why should our prisoner officers have to put up with that pressure when they already have all sorts of other pressures to put up with?
I do not want my speech to be regarded simply as negative or Victorian, in the sense that prisoners are to be punished at every turn while they are in prison. I do not accept that view for a second, although others may think that I do. We should ensure that we assist prisoners as much as possible. I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous, for instance, provides support to prisoners to help them overcome their problem.
Prisoners with an alcohol problem who, even while in prison, are prepared to go that extra mile to get their hands on alcohol, need more help than anybody else. It is not just a case of punishment and ensuring that they do not have access to alcohol from relatives or friends who visit them and somehow pass alcohol to them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that, if it is apparent that a prisoner is using his visitors as a means of getting alcohol and drugs and then circulating them to a wider group of people within the prison, we must take harsh action against him. It may mean that, for a period—perhaps even for the remainder of his sentence—he is separated from his visitors by glass or some other means so that objects cannot be passed to him from his relatives or friends. We should look seriously at that idea.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend touches on an important point and I wonder whether he will explain it a little further. It is about alcohol being passed to inmates from visitors. Did my hon. Friend have the chance when he visited prisons to observe the procedure whereby bags are passed through an X-ray machine? On the whole, it is not customary for prison officers personally to search visitors, and that is a difficulty. They have the power to do so but tend not to use it. Should we not consider encouraging prison officers to make greater use of the power to search visitors when they fear that there is a problem of that nature?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend hits the point with the words "when they fear that there is a problem of that nature". I am sure that guilty visitors are known to the prison authorities. May I stress, however, that every visitor who enters the prison to visit an inmate should not be made to feel like a criminal. We must make absolutely certain that everyone is not tarred by the same brush. We must also be careful not to deter people from visiting friends and relatives in prison.
After all, part of our prison regime is rehabilitation, and the last thing we want to do is to leave prisoners in solitary isolation so that the only people they mix with are other prisoners and prison officers. We want to ensure that they have as many visitors as possible so we must be careful in choosing whose bags to search or who to put through an intimate search.
I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. When prison officers know that certain individuals may be guilty of passing alcohol or drugs to prisoners, a greater use of closed circuit television cameras within meeting rooms should be encouraged. I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister that some videotapes from those cameras have proved to be extremely interesting. Perhaps we should learn more of what goes on in meeting rooms between prisoners and their visitors.
When the Bill becomes an Act, I hope that prisoners who have problems will be given help, guidance and the opportunity to serve the rest of their sentence in prison without the temptation to turn to alcohol whenever problems arise, or just when they feel like drinking.
It is clear that the Bill has resource implications for prisons throughout the country. It has been estimated that the testing equipment would cost around £700. I support the prison building and reform programme that has been going on for the past 18 years, and I do not flinch when people say that we have more people in prison per head of the population than any other country in Europe. So be it. If people do the crime, they deserve to do the time.
We must ensure that that carries on, but we must also ensure that prisons get the resources that they need to implement the fresh obligations that we have placed on them, as in the case of drugs. Prisons must have the money to buy the best equipment and to arrange training for prison officers, so that they know what they are doing.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point say that when prison officers have told prisoners that they would be tested, the prisoners have not refused. Presumably, they complied because they want to live in an atmosphere that is not repressive or oppressive, as might be the case if the regime was lax and fellow prisoners could get access to alcohol. That is where the trouble would begin. Far better for prisoners to allow themselves to be tested. If they have nothing to hide—if they have taken no alcohol—they will have no problems. To protect themselves, they would surely want their fellow prisoners, who may have had access to alcohol and could cause them problems in the future, to be tested.

Lady Olga Maitland: On the question how best to help prisoners, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to follow the experiences that I have seen at Downview prison, where the Addictive Diseases Trust helps prisoners to overcome their drug addiction? That is largely a self-help programme, although led by professionals.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to encourage prison governors to set up similar programmes to counteract alcohol abuse? So successful has the programme been at Downview prison that prisoners are seeking transfer to Downview from other prisons so that they can take part in the programme. Would it not be of enormous benefit to the prison population if such a programme were available for alcohol addiction?

Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We must examine various methods, including the one that she described. We must ensure that prisons have the resources to implement testing. We must also ensure that sufficient research is carried out. Several organisations must have good research to show how people suffering from alcohol dependency could be helped. Such programmes could be introduced into certain prisons—perhaps even test piloted—to see how effective they would be in helping prisoners before their release back into society.
Ultimately, that must be the goal for the vast majority of people locked away in prison. We all know of certain individuals whom I would wish to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives, but the vast majority of

prisoners will eventually be released back into the community. If they have had an alcohol problem in the past, surely we should ensure that we give them as much assistance as possible.
Although that might cost a little extra, in the long term it will save money. If prisoners come out of prison without having received any help or treatment, they will fall back into their old ways. Before long, they will be back on a career of crime and back in prison. We all know how expensive it is to keep prisoners in prison. It would be more intelligent for us to prioritise resources to help people while they are in prison if they have an alcohol problem, even if that is expensive in the short term. We must give them the support they need so that they do not reoffend or return to a life of alcohol abuse once they leave prison.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the precedent has been established? We already have the policy of spend to save. That was announced in the Budget. Would not such programmes be a good example of spending to save?

Mr. Evans: Of course. We know that Governments around the western world have problems prioritising resources. If we believe what we have been hearing from the Opposition, even they have a new sense of realism about spending pledges in the future, although of course no one believes that.
We should try to reprioritise money in the current budgets of the Prison Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point spoke of pool tables, colour television and goodness knows what. Resources that are going into leisure activities should in the long term go into more constructive and positive elements, such as a regime that gave treatment to prisoners who had a problem with alcohol.
I hope that we will use as much research as possible and the expertise that is available, not only in Alcoholics Anonymous but in the universities and abroad, to find out about new research.
I am an executive member of the all-party beer group—I should have said that at the beginning of my speech. We spoke earlier about temporary releases, the pubs dotted around our prisons, and the temptation for prisoners to go into those pubs, possibly on their way back to the prison. We have a duty to assist the landlords, landladies and people who work in pubs. If prisoners think that if they nip into the Dog and Duck—

Mr. Doug Henderson: Or the Ball and Chain.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) speaks of his local.
If prisoners nip into the pub, whatever it may be called, for four or five pints before they go back into prison, we have an obligation to the 900,000 people who work in the drinks industry, including the wholesale, distribution and retail aspects. We have a duty towards them, some of whom are young ladies. If they are doing the afternoon shift, they may be the only people in the bar. A prisoner about to go back into prison for another few months, faced with the temptation of going into the pub for a few pints, will not be helpful to people working in pubs.
If prisoners know that they are going to be tested when they go into prison, they may be deterred from going into the pub. That will offer protection. There is too much violence associated with alcohol. The last thing we want is fights breaking out or crime taking place in pubs in the vicinity of prisons. Pubs are social places where people go to enjoy themselves. They do not want any threat of violence to themselves when they are sitting in a pub.
I am delighted to have participated in this debate. My constituents in the Ribble Valley, who may be somewhat surprised that the measure is not already law, will cheer when the Bill is passed. We are giving prison officers the protection they deserve and the tools they need to protect prisoners and society at large. We are also offering some assistance to those prisoners who suffer from alcohol dependency, so that they will be better people when they are released back into society.

Mr. Doug Henderson: As we made clear on Second Reading, the Opposition support the Bill. It was introduced originally by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whom I have known for 10 years. Although I do not agree with all his views, he presents them in a measured way.
That tradition was continued by the hon. Member for Croydon, Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who moved Second Reading. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was correct to say that the people of this country put law and order at the top of the political agenda. We all know that crime in this country has doubled in the past 18 years under the Conservatives, and public concern was expressed by 23,000 electors in Wirral yesterday.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley began well. I realise that he was on an errand this morning, and, unfortunately, his remarks tended to wander a little. While I was convinced by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Colchester, North, I stumbled over some of those that emerged from the wanderings of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. As the Opposition have accepted the Bill in principle, I have little to say about it. However, the contributions of Conservative Members have tempted me to make several comments.
The tradition of measured argument, as embodied in the speeches of the hon. Members for Colchester, North and for Poole, was not repeated in the contributions of the hon. Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who took a rather censorious view of some of the goings-on in our prisons. I wondered whether the concern of prison authorities and the welfare and punishment of prisoners was their primary concern—I suspect that they have a hidden agenda.
I was a little amused by a remark from the hon. Member for Castle Point. He repeated the comments of a prison governor who had reported that some prisoners returned from temporary release somewhat the worse for drink. I could not help but think that perhaps the Serjeant at Arms could also complain of a similar phenomenon on occasion. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that drunken prisoners become troublesome. Again, the Serjeant at Arms could draw a parallel with the behaviour of some right hon. and hon. Members in the House.
There is a danger that we may be a little too condemnatory, and fail to recognise the real problems that exist in our prisons.

Dr. Spink: I quoted Prison Governor David Bamber, who said that prisoners were returning from temporary release the worse for drink. His remarks were reported widely. I admit to having another agenda besides caring for prisoners: caring for society at large, and for innocent people.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that, at the end of the day, we are concerned about what occurs in society and how to improve it. An authoritarian regime in prison may be necessary for a certain period. However, I have talked to prison authorities—although it is not my primary area of responsibility—who acknowledge that prisons cannot be run in that way.
Sometimes the prison regime must be tough and authoritarian, but at other times it must be relaxed a little in order to reward improvements in discipline, contributions to rehabilitation programmes and so on. We cannot have a rigid regime in prison all the time. We must recognise that, when people are incarcerated hour after hour, day after day, month after month and year after year—and rightly so—all sorts of pressures build up.
I fully support the Bill, but it is completely naive to believe that it will halt all mafia operations in prison. That is not the real world that prison authorities recognise. I visited Rochester prison three or four weeks ago. Prison authorities at that prison deal differently with four categories of prisoners within one management structure. That is necessary, as some prisoners may co-operate more fully when there is a relaxed regime. In other circumstances, the prison authorities recognise that prisoners would abuse such a regime, and that it is necessary to be tough. We must take a measured view of these issues.
I feel strongly that it is far too easy for hon. Members to jump up and make outrageous statements about social issues, based on ideology that is appropriate to 17-year-old Trotskyites or fascists, rather than examining the real problems in prisons and how best to deal with them. A principal reason for the Bill is that currently there are no statistics on the level of alcohol abuse in prisons. As with drug testing, the regime will require some co-operation from prisoners if we are to identify the level of alcohol abuse in prisons—without such co-operation, it will be extremely difficult to test effectively.
We must also remember that alcohol abuse occurs in many other areas of society—it does not happen only in prisons. The problems that such abuse causes in prisons are similar to those that it causes in other walks of life—whether it be indiscipline, failure to deal with details or to work effectively, or breakdown in social relationships. Those problems are caused by alcohol abuse, and they are made worse when people are incarcerated for long periods.
This is an important measure, which can provide prison authorities with an extra tool. It is also a way of calculating the extent of alcohol abuse in our prisons, so that prevention measures may be implemented. We must introduce rehabilitation exercises if they are needed to improve the climate within our prisons. Rehabilitations


programmes to assist prisoners upon their release are also important. The measure has considerable merit, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): At first glance, this appears to be a fairly straightforward measure. However, some answers are required from me—even on Third Reading.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked valid questions and identified several caveats. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on the extremely effective way in which they have piloted the measure through the House. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on their useful comments and on the issues that they have raised, which we need to consider before the Bill leaves the House.
Before taking up the general points that have been made on Third Reading, I shall refer to the matters that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and, to some extent, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who are interested in and concerned about the information and evidence available to us about the nature and size of the problem of alcohol consumption.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow specifically began by saying that he thought that, by agreeing to this measure, we might give the impression that this is a much greater problem than in fact it is. I may have misconstrued or misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Dalyell: How widespread is it?

Mr. Kirkhope: I shall refer to the practical evidence that prison governors have collected. It is important, of course, that we consider the report produced by the health advisory committee for the Prison Service, which appeared in October 1996. The report confirmed a number of matters, which in turn show that there is a problem and that the Bill would be helpful in dealing with it.
To put things in perspective, it is estimated generally that about 7.6 million people over the age of 16 in England and Wales drink more than the limit advocated by the Department of Health in 1979–21 units a week for men and 14 for women. It appears that 6 per cent. of men and 1 per cent. of women have consumption levels of more than 50 and 35 units respectively. Those are levels considered damaging to health.
A survey of the physical health of prisoners, which was carried out by Bridgwood and Malbon in 1995, revealed that 93 per cent. of the male prisoners surveyed had consumed alcohol in the 12 months before imprisonment. That figure is similar to that found in the general population. However, prisoners were four times as likely as men aged 16 and over in the general population to describe themselves as either drinking quite a lot or drinking heavily. Two studies of mental disorder in the

prison population have produced diagnostic data on the harmful or dependent use of alcohol. In 1989, Maden, Taylor Brook and Gunn found that, in a sample of 1,365 sentenced adult males, 118 had a primary diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse.
I shall not detain the House too long, but there is a great amount of information of the sort to which I have referred. I merely wish to take up the points raised by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North before—

Mr. Fabricant: I am wondering whether my hon. Friend or the Home Office generally has any view on those statistics in terms of causality. Do they believe that it is alcohol that causes crime, or that maybe criminals just happen to drink a great deal?

Mr. Kirkhope: I do not want to stray into territory that is obviously not of concern to us on Third Reading of an important Bill.

Dr. Spink: If we are to test prisoners to ascertain whether they have consumed alcohol and we find that some prisoners have an alcohol problem, is it not important that we deal with that problem and assist those prisoners to overcome it? Will my hon. Friend confirm that a letter written by Derek Lewis on 16 March 1995 stated:
All prisons within England and Wales provide prisoners with access to education, treatment and counselling services for substance misuse via the prison health care centre, the probation service or outside agencies and visiting self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous."?—[Official Report, 16 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 675.]
Is that not a good thing, and does it not show how seriously the Government view creating reforming regimes within prisons?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that that is correct. I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right.
We are concerned with the prison population. It is sometimes put around, however, that perhaps there is not as much concern shown as there might be. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North seemed to be trying to suggest that the Government had a certain approach. We feel that it is important to ensure that the prison population is, where possible, reformed, that the circumstances in which the prison population lives while in prison are ordered and that the activities that we are discussing are limited, because of their adverse effect on the chances of reforming prisoners.
I wished to make it clear to the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, as well as to others, that there is much statistical information, apart from the information to which I hope turn in a moment, which is very much anecdotal. There is also hard evidence of a need for action.

Lady Olga Maitland: What representations has my hon. Friend received from prison governors on the sanctions that they would like to apply in the event of an alcohol test showing positive results? There are, of course, a range of available options. Is such a result to be regarded as deeply serious and one that could lead to loss of remission, or would there be some form of loss of


privileges? Which privileges does my hon. Friend think are likely to be considered to be withdrawn and at what level would sanctions be applied—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is straying rather wide of the Bill in talking about possible consequences following testing. I have been tolerant this morning, given that some hon. Members have strayed from time to time. I have heard reference to the House of Commons beer group, for example. In fact, we are talking about alcohol testing in prisons. It may be that in future a Bill will come before the House that will enable hon. Members to consider the problems of the beer group. This morning, however, we are talking about alcohol testing in prisons.

Mr. Kirkhope: I do not want to stray into pastures that perhaps are not related to the Bill, including possible offences and remission for Members of this honourable House. I think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has a point when she asks what is likely to happen as a result of testing. It is a valid point—it has been taken up by other hon. Members—and I shall take it up later when dealing with procedural matters. I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to stray too far.
The Bill would enable a prison officer or a prisoner custody officer in a contracted-out prison to take a sample of breath, urine or any non-intimate sample from a prisoner in any prison establishment for the purposes of ascertaining whether he or she has any alcohol in the body. The Bill is a logical extension of the powers already in force for drug testing—hon. Members have referred to drugs and their relationship with other matters, and I shall try to respond briefly to those comments—enacted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The power to test for drugs has been extremely valuable. It has helped the service to identify the size of the problem of drug taking in prisons. It has gone some way to help in reducing the misuse of drugs in prisons, as part of the overall strategy to reduce such. It is to be hoped that the Bill will in its turn go some way towards reducing the misuse of alcohol in our prisons.

Mr. Fabricant: May I ask my hon. Friend a slightly less philosophical question than my earlier one? Does he agree with the governor of Swinfen Hall young offenders institution, who said that, since the introduction of mandatory drug testing, which he welcomes, there has been a switch to prisoners drinking alcohol?

Mr. Kirkhope: I accept that that may be the case. Young offenders institutions are relevant to these discussions. The consumption of alcohol by young people is a matter of the greatest concern, in relation not only to these proceedings but to other proceedings before us, and to hon. Members.
Alcohol testing will support amendments to the prison rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has hinted, young offender institution rules that were made in September last year included two new disciplinary offences for the consumption of alcohol. Previously, prisoners could be punished only if they were found in possession of alcohol, or if they offended against good order and discipline after drinking it. It is probably a matter of some surprise to the public that we have been comparatively limited in what we could do in the past to deal with this problem.
It is now an offence for a prisoner to be intoxicated wholly or partly as a consequence of knowingly consuming any alcoholic beverage. That is the more serious of the two new disciplinary charges. It applies to the prisoner who, it appears, is seriously intoxicated, in contrast to a prisoner who may have consumed only a small quantity of alcohol. To be satisfied of guilt, an adjudicator will have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was intoxicated.
Presently, if the adjudicator is satisfied after hearing evidence that the accused's behaviour was elated beyond the point of self-control—I am sure that many of us could put it in slightly different jargon, but that is the way it is described—the accused will satisfy the test of intoxication. It is not sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict to show that the behaviour was caused by skylarking or an excess of high spirits.
It is also an offence for a prisoner knowingly to consume alcoholic beverages other than any prescribed to him pursuant to a written order of the medical officer. I am sure that some hon. Members will find that interesting when they visit their medical practitioner. That charge is directed at the prisoner who, although not intoxicated, has knowingly consumed alcohol that has not been prescribed to him or her. The evidence should be such that it would lead a reasonable and right-thinking person to conclude that the accused had consumed alcohol.
Without a more objective means of analysis, which would be provided by formal testing, the available evidence is often insufficient to take any disciplinary action. That leaves governors of our institutions in considerable difficulty. Hon. Members must agree that the most important consideration is the position of the governor of the institution. He is responsible—

Mr. Fabricant: Or she.

Mr. Kirkhope: Or she, indeed. Governors are responsible for discipline within the institution. If they are unable to deal with a problem properly and to maintain discipline, their status may be questioned.

Mr. Tim Smith: Objective testing will be a great step forward. Will the Prison Service as a whole issue guidance to prison governors on appropriate levels—we know, for instance, what the level is for drink driving—or will that be a matter for prison governors? Will governors decide above what level it will be deemed to be a breach of the rules in their prison, so that everyone knows the position?

Mr. Kirkhope: That is an important point. There is concern about the procedures in the Bill. The Government support the measure, but we want to ensure that it works in practice. I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point shortly.
The Bill is logical and straightforward. Its three clauses encompass matters of concern. Clause 1 amends the Prison Act 1952 by inserting new section 16B. That section gives prison officers the power, subject to the governor's authorisation and to prison rules, to require any prisoner
to provide a sample of breath for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has alcohol in his body.


The authorisation may require a prisoner to provide a sample of urine
instead of or in addition to a sample of breath
and a non-intimate sample of any other description, not being a sample of breath or urine.
The Bill must provide flexibility, because it may ultimately be more cost-effective to use another system when technology is sufficiently developed in this area. An alternative system may have to be used because of the physical incapacity of a prisoner, or if the prisoner challenges the result of the breath test. To some extent, that mirrors the arrangements for people who drive while under the influence of drink and have to be tested by police officers.
The power is extended to young offender institutions, remand centres and secure training centres. It is also extended to prisoner custody officers in contracted-out prisons. The circumstances in which the power may be exercised will be set out in the prison rules. Clause 2 merely makes it clear that the requisite authorisation is given by the director in the case of contracted-out prisons.
Clause 3 makes provision for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill. The Bill applies to England and Wales only. However, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the House, will make similar provision for Scotland. It is important for Scotland to have the same facilities available.

Mr. Dalyell: Are there any substantial differences? I think not, but will the Minister confirm that?

Mr. Kirkhope: I understand that there are not, but I shall check that point with officials, and if there is a difference I shall mention it later in my speech or write to the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill will assist the Prison Service to manage prisoners who drink alcohol in prison or when released on temporary licence. The consumption of alcohol by prisoners is a cause of serious concern, not only in the context of the prison society but in communities near prisons. It can be the cause of violence and disorder within the institution or around it. Many prisoners have a history of alcohol abuse: that is a sad fact. It often causes them to commit criminal offences: my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire was concerned about that. There is considerable evidence that, far too often, crimes are committed while persons are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Mr. Fabricant: The governor of Swinfen Hall young offenders institution says that, as well as prisoners becoming intoxicated when they leave the prison and later return, there are sometimes stills in prisons where hooch is prepared. What provisions are there to search prisoners' visitors who are obviously smuggling in alcohol or the equipment required to manufacture alcohol in prisons?

Mr. Kirkhope: That is a good point. Powers are available to the governor outside the usual security checks. The prison governor can limit the interview or meeting between a prisoner and his or her visitors and

make it more restrictive if there is evidence that items are being brought in. Under the governor's authorisation, any person who enters or leaves a prison may be subject to being examined, and bags and other items are checked carefully.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a very sensitive issue and an extremely difficult one for governors. The hon. Gentleman talks about evidence; some of us might wonder what happens when there is no evidence but strong suspicion. Suspicion may sometimes not be enough, and it can create great offence to outraged relatives who come to the surgeries of Members of Parliament. This is one of the most difficult subjects of which we hear at surgeries.

Mr. Kirkhope: I fully agree. It is a sensitive area, but such powers must be available to governors to use when necessary. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about causing offence. When perfectly innocent people visit an establishment with a particular need for security, or enter one of our airports from abroad, there is always a problem in terms of checking and searching them.
I am not certain, but I think that, in practice, the governors of our institutions will try to use the powers available to them in a reasonable manner. They are, of course, liable if they use them in a totally unreasonable manner, but they must have the authority available to them. So-called "closed visits", where a visitor is behind glass and separated from a prisoner so that items cannot be handed over, are important in that regard. An incident must have occurred if such a tight visiting regime is introduced by a governor.

Mr. Nigel Evans: It is important not to dissuade people from visiting friends and relatives, and we must be careful. The point that disturbs me is the incidence of alcohol being distilled on the premises. I find that somewhat difficult to imagine, as the prisons I have visited have strict regimes. I cannot envisage circumstances—other than with the compliance of the authorities within a prison—in which alcohol can be distilled on the premises. Surely there is a constant security regime to look for devices—not just those used for the distillation of alcohol, but drugs, explosives and goodness knows what else.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that that is the case, and I agree that it would be wrong to deter visitors from going to prisons. The fact that prisoners can receive visitors can sometimes have a positive effect on their reform, and we would not want to go out of our way to be difficult in that sense.
The prison environment is very unusual, and some people in prison are extremely clever in their behaviour. They can sometimes secrete substances about themselves, and can get involved in certain undesirable activities. Most prisons would claim that their discipline is balanced and appropriate—no more, no less.

Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, and I am also sorry to quote the governor of Swinfen Hall prison again; but, honestly, I would rather listen to the governor of Swinfen Hall prison than my greatly respected and decent hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on these matters. The governor


points out that, when prisoners have time on their hands—even with the education and training available in prisons—great ingenuity goes into stealing from other prisoners or, in some instances, creating stills in prison. These do exist, and we need mechanisms to ensure that those devices are not made in prisons or smuggled in by visitors.

Mr. Kirkhope: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have learnt a lot from the experiences of those concerned with this matter. Many prisoners have histories of alcohol abuse which have caused them to commit a range of criminal offences. Many are serving sentences for offences committed while under the influence of alcohol. It is clearly in their interests and those of the public that they have some way of controlling their alcohol consumption. Frankly, it is impossible to assess how many offences are committed because of alcohol consumption, but there is evidence that the figure is worryingly high.
Clear associations have been established between alcohol and crimes of violence and disorder in particular. In the prison population as a whole—with its far higher proportion of violent and disorderly individuals than the outside community—the consumption of alcohol can cause serious problems of order and control. I am sure that it is not necessary for me to emphasise that to the House.
Consumption of alcohol by prisoners in breach of their release on temporary licence has caused problems for innocent people in the community, and friends and families of prisoners may also be affected. Other prisoners in open prisons who are trying to come off alcohol may be pushed into temptation if alcohol is available, and prison staff have to deal with prisoners under the influence of alcohol.
The introduction of formal testing will send a clear message to prisoners that the consumption of alcohol within prisons or while released on a temporary licence with the condition of not consuming alcohol will not be tolerated. The Bill makes it less likely that prisoners will succumb to the excessive consumption of alcohol while on release on temporary licence. This, in turn, should provide the necessary reassurance to the public.
I should like to outline the background to the introduction of the Bill. Having complimented colleagues on the way in which they have spoken on the matter, it is important to see why we are where we are. During 1995, representations were received from the boards of visitors of some open prisons. The boards asked if governors were able to impose breathalyser tests on prisoners. Advice received at that time made it clear that the imposition of breath tests on prisoners was unlawful.
That concern provided the incentive for the measure that is now proposed. The governors were made aware of the legal position at that time, and of their significant powers to control the more obvious cases of alcohol misuse. Among them is the facility to include in the terms of a licence under which a prisoner may be temporarily released conditions to restrict or sometimes prohibit the consumption of alcohol. In imposing such restrictions, each case must be considered individually as part of a risk assessment procedure applied to all releases on temporary licence.
Decisions to prohibit alcohol consumption for all releases on temporary licence for any purpose may not be reasonable where there is no suggestion that alcohol has

contributed in the past or might in the future to offending behaviour by an individual. When a prisoner has a condition of his licence prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, he can be charged with breaching the licence if he returns to prison exhibiting signs of the use of alcohol. The number of prisoners who have returned to establishments suffering from the worst effects of alcohol is worrying—whether from the Duck and Drake, as has been mentioned, or from anywhere else.
New conditions governing the release of prisoners on temporary licence were introduced in 1995, and it is now a standard condition of such licences that a prisoner must not enter a public house during the period in which he is subject to the licence. That might give comfort to my hon. Friends and their constituents. The condition was introduced to assist in discouraging improper behaviour by prisoners who were released on temporary licence.
In addition, governors already had certain powers to take disciplinary action against prisoners if they were seen by a member of staff to exhibit signs of being under the influence of alcohol. Those signs include slurred speech, loss of balance and breath smelling of alcohol drink. Such a rough-and-ready approach to these matters is less than satisfactory. Prisoners who are clearly rowdy or disorderly can be charged under paragraph 21 of the disciplinary code for
offending against good order and discipline",
provided it can be shown exactly how the prisoner offended against the good order, with the consumption of alcohol being introduced as an aggravating factor in such a charge.
Establishments also have the authority to introduce a local rule prohibiting the consumption of alcohol within the establishment. In those circumstances, prisoners exhibiting symptoms of being under the influence, and who are known to have been subject to prison or young offenders institution rules when the alcohol was consumed, could be charged with failing to comply with any rule or regulation.
It is, of course, relatively easy to bring alcohol into open prisons. That is because the lower level of security and the use of temporary release facilitate the smuggling of alcohol. It is more difficult in closed prisons, because of their higher level of security, stronger physical barriers and greater emphasis on searching and related procedures. However, there are sometimes finds of illicitly brewed alcohol at establishments with higher security. My hon. Friends have raised particular concerns about the fact that there is still some evidence of illicit brewing.
I hope that the information that I have given has helped to satisfy some of the points raised and shown clearly the context in which the powers to enable prison officers to require a prisoner to provide a sample will have real value.

Mr. Dalyell: It is right that I should say that I have been greatly impressed and rather surprised by the figures that the Minister gave. I should like to thank him for his answer.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I do not want to go back over old ground, but my officials have confirmed that the Scottish provisions will be, if not identical, then very similar to the provisions that we are considering.
The introduction of two new prison rules specifically concerning charges relating to alcohol consumption has already assisted prison staff, as I have said, in laying charges appropriate to the offending behaviour that they observe. Formal testing, enabled through the powers to be conferred by the Bill, will provide objective evidence, which will greatly assist in the proving of charges through the adjudication process in any case where there is a suspicion that alcohol has been misused.
Hon. Members have asked what, in effect, will be the basis of the introduction following the passage of the Bill. The Prison Service intends to embark on pilot studies to find out what will be the best methods of testing. I have already referred to the most well-known forms of testing—by means of a breathalyser or by testing urine—but there are now other ways in which such tests can be carried out. Sometimes that is done on the basis of a sample of saliva, which can be taken in such a way that it is less intrusive and less likely to be objected to by any prisoner who is obliged to be tested.
Before we introduce the measures more generally, we will also want to check the effect of the pilots' operation on the incidence of alcoholism and alcohol consumption in our establishments. It is, however—it would be wrong of me to suggest otherwise—the Government's intention to ensure that these powers and provisions are introduced widely, because we believe that they make a lot of sense and that the way in which they have been promoted by my hon. Friends has shown the great importance that the public attach to our establishments being able to take care of these matters for themselves.
Alcohol will always be a problem if it is abused. It is a particular problem in a closed establishment such as a prison. Allowing the governor to have the necessary powers available and to act on the results of those powers seems to the Government to be very important.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Dr. Robert Spink: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The vast majority of our youngsters are good, caring, thoughtful, courageous, courteous and basically law-abiding people. The Bill will help to keep them that way. It will help to make our streets safer; perhaps it should have been called the safer streets Bill. Young people and all the community, especially the elderly, deserve safer streets. The Bill will make our communities and our environment in every village, town and city more pleasant places for everyone.
The Bill tackles the problem of young people drinking alcohol in public by giving the police the power to confiscate the alcohol—simply to take it off the youngsters and pour it down the nearest drain. For the police, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no criminalisation of the youngsters for having the alcohol in the first place. It would not, however, be the end of the matter for the youngsters, because the police would, I hope, take the opportunity given by the power in the Bill to inform the youngsters' parents.
The Bill helps to stop mischief before it starts. It stops young people from coming under the influence of alcohol because, under that influence, young people do things that they would not dream of doing if they were sober. They make misjudgments. They become involved in petty crime and vandalism. They mess up telephone boxes and bus shelters. They damage fences and push over garden walls. They distribute their litter liberally. Often the litter is empty discarded cans of extra-strength lager and extra-strength cider and the strange alcopop bottles.
Young people sometimes go on to act intimidatingly towards others, particularly other young people, who might be returning from a church meeting, a dance, a sports centre, a youth club or an Air Training Corps meeting. They have to pass youngsters who have been drinking, who sometimes are acting yobbishly. Those youngsters often disturb the peace for elderly people and intimidate them.
Under the influence of alcohol, youngsters become involved in serious crime as well. They can often end up violently attacking each other and other innocent members of the public. Those violent attacks can sometimes end in tragedy, as one such attack did in my constituency last year.
Youngsters can steal cars, take those cars and go so-called joyriding. I would not call it joyriding because, when youngsters take cars under the influence of alcohol and go racing around the streets—we even saw some of them live on television, tearing around council estates in cars that they had stolen—sometimes that also ends in tragedy. It can sometimes end in the death of the young person who stole the car and is driving, the death of passengers in the car and even the death of innocent members of the public, who need protection from such action.
Young people under the influence of alcohol fall victim to criminals. They are preyed on by criminals and by those who want to sell them drugs, the evil drug dealers.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) told me that first use of drugs mostly takes place under the influence of drink—I think the figure was 93 per cent. We have a duty to protect our youngsters from drugs and from negative street culture and the Bill will help to do that. I have a simple equation: youngsters plus alcohol on the streets equals disaster for the youngsters and for the community at large. When they abuse alcohol, young people can get a criminal record and spoil their lives at great cost not only to themselves and their families but to society generally.
Someone asked me. "Will the police have time to implement the Bill's powers?" Of course they will; that is their job, and they will have more time to take preventive measures because of the Bill. When a crime has been committed and the police have to investigate the demolition of a wall or vandalism to a car or, worse, drug trafficking, violent attacks, stealing cars and joyriding, much time is involved. They have to interview witnesses and bring people to the police station and record interviews. Before the matter is brought before the courts, they have to fill out forms and prepare documents and that takes time. If the Bill prevents crime, it will relieve the police of much negative activity and release them to take the preventative measures that the Bill offers.

Mr. David Congdon: I fully support the Bill. However, the worst problems occur on Friday and Saturday nights in town centres. Regardless of whether youngsters are drinking on the streets or have been drinking earlier in pubs, does my hon. Friend share my concern that too often the police want to avoid confrontation and are not prepared to be present in town centres? I hope that the Bill gives a firm message to the police that they must have a presence in town centres late at night to deal with these real and serious issues.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We all visit our police stations and accompany officers on Friday nights. We know the modus operandi. Officers come in on overtime and dress up in their protective uniforms and sit in battle buses, waiting to be called to hot spots and at any time from 10.30 at night until 1 o'clock in the morning they go tearing out with blue lights flashing to deal with violence, intimidation and vandalism on the streets. I want to stop such crime happening by making sure that policemen are on the beat taking alcohol away from youngsters, so that hot spots do not develop.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the police. My experience of the Northumbrian police is that they do not sit drinking tea in police stations on overtime until they are called out. They are on duty and patrolling the streets. The centre of Newcastle which, to say the least, is lively on Friday and Saturday nights, is well policed in the evening.

Dr. Spink: I take my hon. Friend's admonition on the chin. I was speaking in particular about special support groups, which support community constables who do such a wonderful job. I accept every word of my hon. Friend's intervention.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to special constables? In Lichfield,

where there are certainly problems on Friday and Saturday nights, special constables and full-time police officers are on the streets. I hope that I shall be able to speak about that. Those officers are not sitting in battle wagons; they are out deterring crime. I welcome the Bill's powers.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill's provisions are particularly appropriate for special constables because they will enable them to implement low-level preventative measures and that will release police constables to tackle drug traffickers, fraudsters and other serious crime.
The Bill has all-party support, which I welcome. The measure is long overdue, and I thank all those who spoke in favour of it during its various stages. No one has seriously spoken against it. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for his encouragement to present the Bill in the first instance, and for his invaluable support and advice during its progress. He truly cares about his constituents and about the community that he represents so well. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was the prime driving force and inspiration for the Bill. I even thank the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. [Laughter.] Some of my hon. Friends laugh but I mean that, and shall explain why.
I was contacted by a surprised Mr. George Spink, one of the good burghers of Keighley, a town in West Yorkshire. He suggested that I might be plagiarising the shadow Home Secretary. As evidence of that scurrilous accusation, he quoted to me a Daily Mirror editorial of 15 February which stated that the shadow Home Secretary wanted
a crackdown on petty crime to sweep it off the streets.
In particular he will target children, who are responsible for most of these offences. And many of whom will go on to more serious crimes.
Cutting the crime rate will not be easy. But starting like this is the best way to bring law and order to our streets.
George said that he thought those were my words, and I think that I have used similar words.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be in the interest of the House to know whether Mr. George Spink is related to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): As usual, that is not a point of order for the Chair and means nothing at all.

Dr. Spink: We all agree with the sentiments in that editorial because they are common sense. Even the Daily Mirror will, I trust, give my Bill a warm welcome.
The most important step in the Home Secretary's crime-cutting odyssey is tackling under-age drinking, and the Bill does that. We had a constructive Second Reading debate and effective debates in Committee, thanks notably to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), for Barnsley, East (Mr. Ennis) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I thank hon. Members who are present for this debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland),


and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who presented the Bill on First Reading on my behalf, for which I also thank him.
The most important amendment in Committee was to extend the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland. I have always wanted that. The amendment was largely a result of the efforts of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who acted in the best interests not only of his constituents but of all the people of Northern Ireland. In a press statement he said:
under-age drinking is a significant problem throughout North Down—with all the anti-social behaviour that ensues, ranging from petty crime to the intimidation of the elderly.
I have had very many complaints from constituents about drunken youths hanging round their neighbourhood, and making their lives a misery … The police themselves frequently claim they are powerless to intervene and curb such behaviour … Representing a seaside resort like Bangor also drove it home just how valuable this new law would be,".

Mr. Tim Smith: I am sorry to puncture the balloon of euphoria that seems to surround the Bill, which was promoted by Mr. George Spink among others. I understand the problem that the Bill is designed to tackle, but why does it apply only to young persons? Will not people of 18, 19, 20 and possibly older also be involved?

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is one of the strongest points that has been made during the Bill's passage. It would be draconian to ban all alcohol in all circumstances from public places. Anybody over 18 can in any event go into a pub to drink alcohol, and people tend to do that because it is more convivial for them. If they are under 18 they cannot, so they are forced on to the streets. The model byelaw to ban all alcohol from certain areas is a draconian measure and would be inappropriate for certain areas—for example, seaside resorts or picnic areas. How would we handle someone who was simply taking a bottle of wine to his or her home? It would cause grave difficulties. The key problem is that of under-age persons with alcohol in public, which is a recipe for disaster, and my Bill tackles that.

Mr. Fabricant: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that there might be places where it should be legal to drink alcohol, such as pavement cafés, which we have in Lichfield. Unfortunately, however, we also have in Lichfield people over the age of 18, who are drinking quite legally in pubs, pouring out on to the streets when the pubs shut at 11 o'clock on a Friday and Saturday night and continuing to drink. Why will that not be illegal under the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now start to deal with what is in the Bill.

Dr. Spink: In such circumstances, the model byelaw for my hon. Friend's area might be appropriate, but that is not covered by my Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Unlike the model byelaw, which does not allow confiscation, my hon. Friend has a remedy in his Bill to deal with the matter immediately, and that is very important.

Dr. Spink: And it does so without criminalising the young people. There are enough ways for them to get into bother without us inventing another way today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down has been a doughty and assiduous campaigner to defend his constituents from the effects of under-age drinking. I pay tribute to him. I know that he is concerned to strengthen the family, and there are few opportunities for us in the House to reinforce parental responsibility. The Bill is an opportunity to do that.
The Bill gives the police the power to take the names and addresses of youngsters involved in under-age drinking and then to inform the parents. It would be irresponsible to keep that information from parents, who have not just a duty but a very real responsibility to bring up their children properly. Parents must be told what their children are getting up to, so that they can take whatever action is necessary. I hope that the police will use the power to take names and addresses on every possible occasion, because it works.
The "Do you know where your children are?" campaign in Weymouth, Dorset, which successfully piloted last year some of the measures in the Bill, showed that a large proportion of parents who were informed that their children were misbehaving with drink in public took the necessary action. About 90 per cent. of the children who had been caught and reported did not come to the notice of the police a second time. Parents will act responsibly given the information, and no one should withhold that information from them. In giving the police the power to take names and address, the Bill is truly innovative in British law. I do not think that that power existed previously in British law.
Parents are sometimes not helped by the drinks industry. I think in particular of alcopops and the extra-strong lagers and ciders, which are often packaged, named and marketed specifically at young people. Some rogue companies are still acting irresponsibly and promoting those products. The Portman Group is working to resolve that problem. I say to the industry as a whole: "Get your act together, because if you don't, we will introduce measures that have all-party support in the House to bring further regulations on your industry."
There is much business on the Order Paper today, so I shall resume my seat. If there are any items of specific detail that need to be answered, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been so helpful and supportive, will deal with them, or perhaps I can deal with them if I am fortunate enough to be allowed to speak again.

Mr. David Congdon: As I said in an earlier intervention, I welcome the Bill because it gives the police a power that does not currently exist, so I am happy to support it. However, I share some of the reservations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), in that the Bill is limited in scope. That is not a criticism in any shape or form, because there is clearly a problem of youngsters intimidating people in public places late at night and sometimes, particularly on Saturday afternoons, in shopping centres. Sometimes that will involve alcohol, sometimes not.
Although we must address some difficult issues, such as confrontations and violence in town centres late at night, it is often people's perception and fear that is the problem rather than the actuality. It is a sad fact of modern life that many people over the age of—I have to be careful what age I say, so I shall use a low figure—25 will not go near town centres at night, because they are not pleasant places to be. If the Bill goes some way to dealing with that, I am sure that the public will be pleased.
Most young people who drink are well behaved. Most young people do not go into town centres at night to cause trouble. Most go out to enjoy themselves. Why should they not do so? We live in a society where people have more wealth at a younger age and have the money to go out and enjoy themselves. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is only a minority who go out—whether they are 17 or 18—to get drunk and cause trouble. I hope that we will bear that in mind.
Young people, who can drive at the age of 17, are far better than older people—I have to be careful of the age again, so I shall say over 40—at not drinking and driving. Regrettably, it is often older men who have not changed their drinking habits and still drive. When young people of 17 and 18 are drinking in pubs, there is always one who will not drink because he or she is driving. We should commend them for that.
I have certain reservations about the Bill, although they do not detract from my support for it. Late at night in town centres there is a fair amount of trouble—windows get broken, fights occur as well as stabbings. I suspect, however, that most of that occurs as a result not of alcohol which has been consumed on the streets, but of that which has been drunk in pubs. Although the legal drinking age is 18, many under-age youngsters will be served in pubs. No matter how much the House may regret that, that is the reality in pubs in town centres throughout the country. Many of the problems on the streets are therefore caused by alcohol that has been drunk in pubs. I readily concede, however, that it is intimidating to see youngsters not only drunk in public places, but drinking there.
As I said in my intervention, it is one thing for the House to pass legislation magisterially, it is another to ensure that the forces of law and order enforce the existing law. Much of the activity that occurs in town centres late at night could be dealt with under existing law. I have immense respect for the police, but it is a sad fact that there is a temptation not to provide a police presence in town centres at night. We should have police wandering around late at night rather than the figurative flying squad of men and women in carrier vans or in cars, who are sent in when it is too late. That often exacerbates the trouble. To make the Bill a success, the police should act like the neighbourhood bobby in town centres at night. However, unless we have a sufficient police presence, they may sometimes be the target for abuse and assault.
It is important that the police in our major town centres address the problem. That means that police forces should deploy their men and women to ensure that more of them are on duty late at night on a Friday or Saturday. They should not worry quite so much about providing police to wander around suburban streets in the middle of the day, when fewer problems are likely to occur.
I want the Bill to succeed, but that means that we must ensure that the police use its powers. That is my plea. I hope that steps can be taken to reclaim some of our town centres so that people can visit them without fear and intimidation. I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who made some extremely, sensible comments about young people.
I served on the Committee which considered the Bill, so I have been closely associated with all its stages. It is a bit of a pity that there has been a temptation to use it as an opportunity to condemn young people's behaviour, as well as to condemn brewers and the manufacturers of alcopops. The Bill is nothing more than a law and order measure. It will be used to control disturbances caused in particular by young men who cause problems in town centres.
I hope that we are not in the middle of a Band of Hope meeting. The Bill should not be used to attack young people or drink. Drinking has an important part to play in our culture. My hon. Friend the Minister made a lengthy contribution to the previous debate, which was also on alcohol, so I suspect that he deserves a drink now. Drink taken sensibly enriches our lives; it certainly enriches mine from time to time.
We must get away from the idea that the Bill is to do with the control of the sale of alcopops or drunkenness. Public drunkenness is a problem, but it is not a new one. I do not believe that our town centres are any worse than they were 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Young men have always got drunk from time to time, and sometimes that leads to disturbances.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East that town centres today are better than they were 50 years ago. They are certainly better than they were when I was a young man. I also agree with him that young people are extremely responsible, particularly about drinking and driving.
In Newcastle, thousands of young people gather at Bigg Market on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday night. Newcastle is an important student centre, so many young people live there and go out on those nights to enjoy themselves. There are problems from time to time, but most students enjoy themselves without causing any trouble. I welcome the fact that they enjoy themselves.

Mr. Fabricant: I had the privilege to stand for the constituency of South Shields in 1987, so I am familiar with Newcastle. If the Bill had been law a few years ago, would my hon. Friend care to speculate whether Gazza would be causing fewer problems on the streets of Newcastle late at night?

Mr. Atkinson: I am a great defender of Mr. Gascoigne. He is a substantial character in the north-east; he has been involved in one or two lively incidents, but the north-east is a lively place. Mr. Gascoigne, certainly in his footballing capacity, has made a great contribution to the football culture of Newcastle, which is the UK capital of soccer.

Mr. Tim Smith: What about Chelsea?

Mr. Atkinson: I shall not go into the merits of Chelsea, but I know where my support lies.
In our discussions on the Bill a number of concerns were raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is unable to be here today. There was some misunderstanding of the nature of the Bill. It gives the police powers that they need and for which they have asked; we leave it to their discretion as to how to implement it. In Committee, we made too much of a meal of the Bill's small print.
We can trust our police, who police our cities very sensitively and effectively. The police will not abuse the extra power, they will simply use it to deal with those at whom the Bill is predominantly directed—troublesome 13, 14 and 15-year-olds who are given drink. They are the young hooligans who cause so many problems in our town centres. The problems are caused not so much by older people, but by the young people who get hold of drink. One can see them in bus shelters with tins of lager—not necessarily strong lager, but ordinary lager; they are not allowed into pubs so they congregate on the streets and in town centres and cause problems, particularly for elderly people.
The Bill is not about the detail of whether the police should have the right to confiscate the drink or whether they should be certain that the bottle contains alcohol—one of the questions raised in Committee. In Committee we discussed whether the police could identify an orange substance as an alcopop or simply orange juice or lemonade. It is up to the police to decide whether they have a reasonable suspicion that what is in the bottle is alcoholic and whether they have the right to confiscate it. I believe that, if police officers take the drink from young people, they should pour it down the drain and send them home.
The Bill is not about making criminals of young people, but about preventing them from getting into trouble and becoming criminals—that is where its strength lies. When my hon. Friend the Minister outlined the Bill's provisions, he accepted that. We do not want the powers in the Bill to be used by the police to arrest 14, 15 and 16-year-olds; we want the police to take drink off such young people so that they do not move from one place to another with it. If necessary, the police should take their names and addresses. The police can then call at the parents' home—as happened with the Weymouth experiment—and say, "Do you know where your child was on Friday or Saturday? Did you know that he was drinking in the street?" That is the way to tackle drunkenness among young people. They should not be arrested and hauled before the juvenile courts. It is not sensible to make young people criminals unnecessarily.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend has talked about not making young people criminals, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). But clause 1(3) states that a person

who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (1)
is guilty of a criminal offence.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is right—the Bill contains that final measure. If a person refuses to comply, he can be arrested and charged with a criminal offence. The question whether the policeman acted reasonably or

unreasonably would have to be decided by a magistrate. But the spirit of the Bill is not aimed at bringing young people to court unless they are particularly obstructive or deliberately dishonest when questioned by the police. The Bill's purpose is to prevent young people from being made criminals and to allow the police to move them on and remove the alcohol before problems arise.
I shall deal with another small point that we discussed in Committee. It involves the message being sent out to the corner shop and small off-licence owners who often sell drink to under-age people. In Committee, we mentioned the case of a corner shop in Barnsley that was notorious for supplying young people with alcohol. The message emerging from the House today should go to those shopowners who continue deliberately to sell alcohol to young people. We all know the problems affecting corner shops in this country and how difficult it is for them to survive, but nothing irritates the average corner shop owner more than one owner seeking to capture the illegal market in selling drink to under-age people. That upsets all honest corner shop owners and the police. The authorities should use all their powers and employ random purchasing methods to ensure that corner shop owners do not encourage young people to drink.
Having in a sense lived with the Bill through Second Reading, Committee and now Third Reading, I welcome it. At heart, it is a good Bill, and the extra powers it gives the police will be used well and responsibly. I am sure that it will be much appreciated.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this important stage. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on having so ably and skilfully steered it through to Third Reading. I am astounded that such legislation has not been introduced before now. It strikes me as astonishing that at present, although young people are prevented from entering a pub and drinking, they are able to have alcohol in a public place. The Bill will crack down on a serious problem and block off an important loophole in the law.
The urgency is best illustrated in a report that appeared recently in, I believe, The Daily Telegraph:
Police found children as young as nine drinking on street corners during a campaign to crack down on under-age drinking in Cleveland.
Over a couple of Friday nights, the police rounded up 200 youngsters who
were made to pour gallons of alcopops, cider, lager and sherry down the drain".
Some were arrested and taken home by the police, who explained to their parents exactly what had happened. That was a large-scale operation, which was set up because of the enormous number of complaints from residents who had been victims of vandalism, intimidation and lager-loutish behaviour, and who felt completely powerless to do anything about it.
Everyone I have met, whether in the House or in my constituency, has complained about young people congregating in and around parks, bus shelters, high streets, railway stations or back streets. When in such groups, those youngsters drink alcohol, and they probably indulge in solvent abuse or even drug abuse. It is a serious


problem, and it is important that we should prevent those young people from doing great harm to themselves as well as terrorising local communities.
It is evident that the large number of young people who commit crimes—the peak age is between 14 and 17—tend to have been drinking at the time of their offence. I have no doubt that, if we can remove the curse of alcohol from them, that will be a large step forward in bringing down levels of juvenile crime.
What I find interesting is that girls are just as likely as boys to take part in these drinking activities, which is a new phenomenon that I had not previously taken on board. The fact that children as young as nine have been found carrying alcohol is cause for concern and—there is no doubt about it—we must take action fast.
As has been said, it is important that, in tackling young people's alcohol consumption, we do not merely turn them into a criminal statistic. It is important that we take preventative action—a protective course of action—and try to remove those children from the risk of danger before they cause themselves permanent harm.
Discovering the reasons why young people go down the route of taking alcohol is an integral part of the initiative that includes trying to confiscate it. Young people take alcohol for several reasons, one of which is to show off to friends. It is bravado—showing that they are one of the chaps. In my opinion, the imagery that is conveyed by society as a whole makes us all responsible. The media and commercials glamorise drinking, and it is very important for young people to be properly educated as to how to handle drink and as to the circumstances in which it is acceptable to have alcohol and those in which it is not.
Parents deserve our sympathy because when they try to instil discipline in their homes regarding the right way to drink alcohol they find their efforts undermined by the glamorisation of binge-drinking, especially when it is carried out by leading figures such as pop musicians, football stars and cricketers. Those cult figures are role models, and if they are seen to be losing control of themselves, young people are given the message that it is acceptable.
I have sympathy for parents who ban drink from the home or say to a child, "You may have some wine, but we shall water it down," which I used to find enormously humiliating when I was a small girl. My father used to rather ostentatiously pour the water into a wine glass, but he had a reason for doing so because he was trying to communicate the message that, although it is acceptable to drink, it must be done in moderation. There is a well known phrase, "A little bit of what you fancy doesn't do you any harm." However, we are discussing what happens when it goes beyond the streets of acceptability.
Sometimes young people get bizarre ideas about the role of alcohol. I have never forgotten the story of the general practitioner who had to receive a patient in his home. The patient arrived at about 10 am when the doctor was upstairs, and his five-year-old daughter received the patient, took the patient into the consulting room and asked, "Would you like a gin?" She felt that alcohol was an acceptable part of life.
As children grow up and find that alcohol is easy to get hold of, another problem arises. In high streets, young people go into an off-licence or supermarket and fool the sales girls or the shopkeeper into selling them

alcohol—which, of course, is breaking the law—or send in a teenager who is over the age of 18, who can lawfully buy that alcohol and then hand it over to a younger person. That happens all too often.
The Bill has one weakness in that it deals with only the possession of alcohol in a public place. I wish that we were able to legislate more widely and insist that byelaws be enacted throughout the country to ban the consumption of alcohol in designated public places. That happens in about 33 local authorities and it should be given virtually 100 per cent. coverage as it would be a big step forward.
To return to dealing with young people, we must pass on the clear message that drinking alcohol in a public place, or at all under the age of 18, is not acceptable. Alcohol Concern supports the Bill and I welcome that fact. It is particularly concerned that more effort should go into deterring licensees from selling alcohol to those under 18. Alcohol Concern feels that more effort should be put into test purchasing, to find out which licensees are lax and sloppy about assessing whether someone to whom they are selling alcohol is over 18. Perhaps we also ought to ensure that there are more powerful penalties for licensees who break the law. Their licences ought to be suspended far more frequently and a heavy fine would certainly serve as a penalty that would deter others.
The Portman Group—an organisation set up by the leading United Kingdom drinks companies to promote sensible drinking—has, by and large, done some useful work, but I was disconcerted at its response to the Home Office consultation paper on under-aged drinking in public. The group's view surprised me as it was hostile to the Bill and claimed that it feared we were legislating in haste only to repent at leisure. The group felt that we had not paid sufficient attention to other means of educating young people not to drink in public. It is staggering that the group should take such a soft, liberal view on such an important issue. I totally discount the sort of problems that it raised.
The group felt that it was unreasonable to demand that police officers should intercept young people carrying alcohol, feeling that that would result in aggression and hostility between young people and the police. I discount that view. The police have always found when they are trying to invoke law and order that the people with whom they have to deal are not terribly pleased about being tackled, whatever the issue—whether a suspected burglar, someone committing a serious driving offence or whether in cases of vandalism, violence or under-aged drinking, which could lead to vandalism and violence. I was surprised that the Portman Group, which is so respected, should suddenly go totally soft on such an important issue.

Dr. Spink: The Portman Group has since had detailed negotiations and discussions with my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and myself and is now broadly supportive of the Bill. It would state that the Bill is just one of a number of measures that should be taken to tackle the problem, and I think that we can all agree with that.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me up to date. I was surprised that such a well-known and established organisation should take such a view, and I am glad that, as a result of consultation, it is now on board and with us on this important measure.
I hope that the Portman Group will now turn its attention to another enormously important matter, which relates directly to the Bill. A new form of alcohol is


coming onto the market, of which young people are likely to take advantage: young people can now make an alcopop drink in their own homes. A company has put on to the market a product called "Splooch"—a bizarre name for a rather serious problem—which can turn a soft drink into alcohol with the equivalent strength of strong beer. It is bought in kit form and costs only £4.99. What is worrying is that the kit is promoted with a cartoon logo showing two eyes looking the worse for drink. When the makers of that home-mode hooch were challenged about it, Mr. Richard Danby of Continental Wine Experts in Norwich said:
It is intended for the alcopop market. It is meant to be the home-brew equivalent but we are certainly not targeting under-age drinkers. It takes ten days to brew and that is a considerable disincentive.
All that I can say is that he has totally underestimated the ingenuity and determination of young people to acquire alcohol by one means or another. If they can afford to brew it from their pocket money and take it out on to the streets, it is an extremely serious matter.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I understand my hon. Friend's concern but we must not get too excited about these matters. I remember from my youth a number of drinks that could be mixed up quite nicely—one was called a "Moscow mule", in which one could never taste the alcohol but which certainly had a dramatic effect. Those mixtures and the ability to mix drinks have always been around. Our aim should be not to run around trying to ban bits of the drink industry, which would simply make it more attractive still to young people, but to educate young people about the dangers of alcohol abuse. That is the answer.

Lady Olga Maitland: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must educate young people about alcohol abuse. None the less, when alcohol is so accessible, whether through brewing it in the home or purchasing it in shops and off licences, we must take it seriously. I am worried that this is yet another means for young people to obtain alcohol easily and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether the Government will consider banning drinks brewed at home and targeted at young people.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill confiscates alcohol not only in public places like high streets and city centres but on public transport. I raised that matter on Second Reading and want to emphasise the importance of rigorously invoking that power on buses, late-night buses and trains. It is no joke for fellow passengers and, travelling on the trains as I do, I find it extremely unpleasant to be terrorised by young thugs who are carrying drink and totally out of control. Their intimidatory behaviour is unpleasant and the filth and chaos that they create in railway carriages is deeply unpleasant. I hope that train guards and ticket collectors will be encouraged to call the police when they feel that they need help.
Finally, the Bill is important from the point of view of parental responsibility. The fact that the parents could receive a letter if a young person has been found carrying alcohol will mean that young Johnny will have to answer for what he has been doing.
The Bill will be a further deterrent, because more notice will be taken of what young people are doing. I find it amazing that youngsters, sometimes under the age of 12, are roaming round the streets late at night. I suspect that that is part of the wider problem of the breakdown of the traditional family. Young people tend to feel that they are not the No. 1 interest to either parent, because the parents have a multiplicity of partners.
Those children roaming the streets become prey to the growing problem of alcohol abuse. That is extremely serious. Some parents have opted out of their responsibilities, but that problem can now be dealt with. The letters, and even a visit from the police, will force them to recognise where they have let their children down.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point on initiating the Bill. It is significant, and I hope that it continues to have a smooth passage through Parliament.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) deserves the thanks of the House for introducing this small but useful measure.
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said about the danger of people being criminalised through the Bill, but only irresponsible young people, who refused to co-operate with the police, would find themselves in trouble with the law. Law-abiding young people who handed over their bottle of alcohol without demur would not suffer in any way as a result of the measure, save for being deprived of the small amount of alcohol in their possession.
In common with many hon. Members, I have received complaints from people who live near a playing field, a youth club or a public alleyway. They complain that young people congregate in public and make a nuisance of themselves, drinking, shouting, dropping litter, abusing drugs and committing criminal damage. If the adults concerned remonstrate with the young people who are acting in such an anti-social way, they often receive a mouthful of bad language for their trouble. Often, the police are then called.
Under the existing law, remedies are available to the police. They can prosecute the young people for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, but to succeed they would need to show that someone had suffered harassment, alarm or distress. That may be a difficult test to satisfy in a trivial case.
We do not want our courts to be cluttered with minor examples of Public Order Act offences that take up a great deal of time for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, witnesses and the courts; nor do we want the young people concerned to acquire a criminal record for a trivial act that may arise simply from thoughtlessness, which may be alcohol-related.
If the police take no action, however, the complainant is upset and may accuse them of failing in their duty, and may complain to the local Member of Parliament that the police are powerless or unwilling to interfere.
Under the existing law, the young people could be prosecuted for dropping litter. Litter in our streets and public places is certainly a nuisance that needs to be dealt with. There is a difficulty for the police, however. If the young people causing the litter are still present when the


officer arrives, they have only to pick up their beer cans and other rubbish, and there is no crime; but if the youngsters have left the scene, it is difficult to catch them and prove that they were responsible for the litter.
Clearly, the present law is inadequate to deal with that type of nuisance. Therefore, the Bill is justified. Some hon. Members have criticised it for not having sufficient scope, but it is far better to have a small Bill of limited scope that achieves limited objectives than a wide-ranging Bill that is deficient.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The theme for today seems to be alcohol and, more importantly, law and order. As I said earlier, I believe that law and order is the most important issue for the general public. I have held public meetings to discuss that subject, and I have also enjoyed accompanying the police on their patrols on a Friday night from 9 pm until 2 am, when I witnessed the pressures they face fulfilling their duty of protecting the public. I have also visited a residential home in my constituency to discuss the problems experienced by the elderly. Intimidation and feeling threatened by young people is a very real problem for elderly people, and I am afraid that alcohol features in that equation.
The police in Fulwood adopt a very proactive attitude when approaching young people—particularly those as young as 11 or 12—who hang around on street corners consuming alcohol. It defies logic how those young people can get their hands on alcohol in the first place. The police usually confiscate it, but there is a grey area concerning those aged 15, 16 and 17. We know the difficulties that publicans have in trying to determine, in the absence of identity cards, whether young people are aged 18. They must use their judgment and, in some cases, they get it wrong.
We must ensure that the police are given the appropriate powers to confiscate alcohol from young people who are consuming it in public places. Such activity is obviously intimidatory to others and may lead to criminal acts. Some people have referred to the measure as a killjoy Bill. I was 15 when I first entered a pub in Swansea for the odd alcoholic drink, but I can safely say that I did not roam the streets with a can of lager when I was a youngster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) emphasised that we are talking about a small minority of youngsters. Alcohol abuse is not a common problem among young people, the vast majority of whom are honest and good. We could all point to the good work that young people do: many are involved with charities, as well as with the guides, scouts and various other groups, and not in wrongdoing. We must make sure that we do not tar all young people with the same brush. However, we must also ensure that the police have the tools with which to target the small minority, so that they may protect the rest of society and remove the stigma from all young people.
Unlike the position 20 or 30 years ago, young people these days seem to have greater disposable incomes, which they spend as they choose. The village in which the residential home I visited is situated has a problem with young people. That problem is worse during the summer months, when youngsters are on holiday and the better weather allows them to stay out on the streets for

longer periods. It is a problem for some residents, who become fearful when they see young people congregating, even when those youngsters are without alcohol.
It has already been said, but I make the point again, that the "specials" do a superb job in assisting the rest of the police in dealing, for example, with the congregation of young people, with or without alcohol. I have seen the specials on the streets during weekends and other days of the week, and it is evident that their presence and that of the police generally do a power of good.
A lack of a police presence would lead to the congregating of young people, the consumption of alcohol and the problems that ensue. That is when police officers have to be taken away from other important duties to firefight, as it were, a problem that has already started. Instead, the police should be given support initially—at the stage when the specials are involved—to ensure that they can deter young people from congregating and gaining access to alcohol. I wished to give the specials a special mention.
The use of closed circuit television is useful. Such a system has been set up in Clitheroe, and I should like it extended to other areas. Problems arise when young people gain access to alcohol and then engage in criminal activities such as vandalism. That is a specific problem that can be addressed by the introduction of CCT. I hope that we shall continue with the work that has already been started under the Government in providing further resources to introduce CCT systems throughout the country.
We must not, however, forget rural areas. It is not only cities and towns that experience the problems to which I have referred. Many rural areas, such as Longbridge, would benefit from the introduction of CCT.
The Government are noted for their deregulation initiative. I warmly welcome deregulation, and since becoming a Member of this place I have seen the deregulation of licensing hours. It was thought at one time that pubs should close in the afternoon so as to correct certain problems. Pubs are now open from relatively early in the morning through until 11 pm. I should like to see further deregulation.
I am a hardened Euro-sceptic, but the rest of Europe seems to deal properly with licensing laws. I see no reason why people should not be allowed to drink in certain pubs that perhaps have special licences until 2 am, rather than being forced to go to clubs or elsewhere to drink. Why should they not be allowed to drink a little later at night? There might be a feeling within the Home Office that extended hours will only exacerbate certain problems that stem from the consumption of alcohol.
I suggest that we should further reflect on licensing hours, and not harm those who want to go about their lawful business by ensuring that pubs are closed at an unusually early hour by comparison with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we must ensure that the police have proper tools to deal with those who drink alcohol on the streets if we choose to extend licensing hours. The sooner there is an extension, the better—that is my view.
We must ensure that the police receive proper training in dealing with young people. It is important to ensure also that good relationships are maintained. We do not want to instil in the minds of young people the idea that the police are the enemy and that they are present to stop them having a good time. That is not the case. The police


must receive training to ensure that they are able to deal with possible problems. Certainly they should be hard on the young villains we wish to see cleared off the streets, but at the same time there should be good relations with the vast majority whose behaviour is extremely good.
It is said time and time again—I represent a rural area—that under-age drinking takes place in rural areas because there is not as much to do in the country as there is in towns and cities, where there are more facilities. We must ensure that resources provided by the national lottery are directed in part to rural areas to provide facilities that otherwise might not be affordable. Swimming pools and other facilities might help to get young people off the streets and into sporting activities. That would be extremely useful.
Alcopops have rightly been mentioned. I am alarmed that some such drinks are blatantly targeted at young people. It would be better to work with the industry rather than to legislate. Surely the industry can see the benefits of this proposal. We should ensure that young people are not targeted by the marketing of drinks that taste like lemonade, orangeade or cherryade but have a powerful kick due to their high alcoholic content.
When I was a youngster, I could buy a can of shandy in a shop. There is enough alcohol in a can of shandy to make it go brown. People will not get drunk or suffer harmful side effects from shandy, but that is not the case with these drinks.

Lady Olga Maitland: The brewing industry makes an enormous amount of money out of alcopop drinks. We are fooling ourselves if we think that a little self-regulation will be the answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take tougher action, which means banning those drinks?

Mr. Evans: I usually agree with my hon. Friend in everything she says, thinks and does, but on this occasion I disagree with her. In the vast majority of cases, self-regulation, in co-ordination with the police, the Home Office and other bodies, is the right route. The drinks industry has a responsibility to its customers, to parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) mentioned, and to society at large. It should carefully consider its marketing of these drinks.
I do not believe that such drinks should be banned, because that would merely lead to people going into pubs and saying, "Please can I have a glass of orange juice and two shots of vodka," and making their own combination. I have no problem with those drinks being available already made up, but it is totally wrong for the industry to target its marketing at young people. Some as young as 16 or 17 go to have a drink without an ID card. Their taste buds are not sufficiently developed for them to like other alcoholic drinks, so they are attracted to the softer drinks, and will ask for hooch or other alcopops.
The industry must carefully examine the names of some of these drinks. It has a responsibility, and we must give it the opportunity to show that it can regulate itself. If it refuses to do so, we must consider further legislation to ensure that such drinks are not targeted at our young people.
Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. I am delighted that, when the police take these drinks away from youngsters, they are not just given a

slap on the back of the hand and told to go away. The police get in touch with their parents, some of whom do not know what their youngsters are up to in the evenings. Even if they were given photographic evidence, some of them would deny that their little Johnny or Susie was drinking alcohol in the streets. Parents must take full responsibility for the actions of their youngsters. Perhaps they could be advised to have counselling, and be shown how they could deal with the problem of their youngster's drinking.
Some youngsters get up to far worse things than having the odd drink of alcohol. I am well aware of the drug problem, because I am secretary of the all-party drugs misuse group. We must make absolutely certain that parents are aware of their responsibilities, and that they have help to carry out their duties towards their young children.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Bill, and I reaffirm that it is not meant to be an attack on young people—most of whom are very responsible and a credit to the community. It should be emphasised also that the Bill is not an attack on publicans or the alcohol industry. I ought to mention that many of the directors of Bass live in Lichfield, which is just down the road from Burton, one of the largest brewing cities in the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his Bill, and Mr. George Spink of Keighley, who played an obvious part in its drafting.
In 1994, the Home Office stated that 2,701 people under 18 had been convicted or cautioned in that year for offences related to drunkenness. Clearly, this is a great problem, which needs to be addressed. It is not just a question of drunkenness and intimidation in the street; it is more a question of perceived intimidation.
Lichfield is a small rural town—it is a city by definition, as it has an 801-year-old cathedral. There is not a great deal to do in Lichfield, although there is a pub on every street corner. There is no nightclub, bowling alley or cinema. There is certainly no youth club—not even a club run by the cathedral, which is a sad thing to report. So where do people in Lichfield get their entertainment? In pubs.
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that we need more flexible closing times for pubs. I raised this subject in the House about two years ago, and said that we needed staggered closing times. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) got a cheap laugh by making a sedentary comment about staggering.
It is a phenomenon in this country that people pour out on to the streets at the same time—11 o'clock. Old people, and sometimes young people, in Lichfield feel intimidated when they are out on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights in particular and see people they think are drunk and threatening. However, in my experience, although those people might be slightly drunk, they are not intimidating.
The only criticism I have of the Bill is that it addresses only young persons' drinking. Part of the problem is people who are legitimately in pubs who buy lagers as 11 o'clock approaches and then drink them in the street. I believe that staggered closing times would get around that problem.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley about the importance of closed circuit television. CCTV has been introduced in Lichfield, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department opened the operations. Not only has CCTV resulted in lower crime rates; it has deterred loutish behaviour—partly due to drinking alcohol—on the streets of Lichfield.
I have mentioned the important role played by special constables in Lichfield. Inspector Colin Bayley at Lichfield police station has told me that policing in Lichfield would fail—particularly on Friday and Saturday nights—without the worthwhile work of special constables on duty. One of the reasons I support the Bill is that it will make it easier for full-time police officers and special constables to confiscate alcohol, and pour it down the drain if it has been confiscated from young people.
Alcopops have been mentioned. I have been serving on the Committee dealing with the Finance Bill, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. He has outlined the dangers as vividly as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), but was slightly more practical. In this instance, he had the power to slap some prohibitive tax on alcopops. I hope that that will be a practical way of deterring people from drinking them.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am delighted at this excellent news, but what sort of tax will be imposed on this pernicious drink, which has brought so much harm to our young people?

Mr. Fabricant: It is times like these when I wish I had not given way to my hon. Friend. I refer her, however, to the Finance Bill, which has now been reported from Committee. Next week or the week after, it will be further discussed, and, if my hon. Friend goes to the Vote Office, she will be able to find out the precise amount of taxation. I wish that I could give her the information off the top of my head, but sadly I cannot.
I pay tribute to a friend of mine, Dr. Alan Howard of Cambridge university, whose son, incidentally, is the Conservative candidate in Kingswood. Dr. Howard has shown that there is some nutritional benefit in drinking alcohol. He has developed an extract from red wine called Nutrivine, which will be marketed. As I have said, we should not condemn the drinking of alcohol out of hand. There is clear medical evidence that, as with most things, if it is drunk in moderation, it can be of no harm. That is particularly so with red wine, although perhaps not quite such the case with beer. Alcohol can be beneficial, although we do not want to encourage young people to go over the top in drinking red wine.
Whether or not there is danger in the streets through young people drinking alcohol, there is a perceived danger. People in Lichfield and other places throughout this land are frightened on a Friday and Saturday night, and perhaps on other nights, of going out on to the streets when they see behaviour that they consider to be drunken, loutish and threatening. Whether it is drunken, loutish or threatening is not the point—it is perceived to be such.
It is against the law anyway to drink alcohol on the streets, but the Bill makes the life of police officers easier and means that the problem can be dealt with without

giving the person apprehended by the police officer a criminal record. Surely, in the case of young people, that has to be applauded too. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I am pleased to give the Opposition's support to this private Member's Bill. When we were discussing the previous business, I had intended to make a terse speech, but I listened to some of the contributions from Conservative Members and I was tempted into making one or two comments, which lengthened my contribution. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, because Labour is a little short-handed, I have had one or two other duties to which to attend this morning and I have not had the good fortune to listen to some of the other contributions from Conservative Members. The consequence—I am sure that the House will welcome this—is that my contribution will be as terse as I had intended my contribution to be in relation to previous business.
The Bill is important. I got a flavour of some of the claims made by Conservative Members. It is not a particularly party political issue, but great claims have been made about sorting out all the problems of young people, under-age drinking and all the rest of it. It is naive to think that any single measure will do that. People who make that claim forget their own teenage days, their colleagues and friends and all the little pranks that everyone got up to then.
If society knew how to deal with these problems, it would have dealt with them already. It is a case of continuing to monitor what is happening and of stopping the excesses, although I do not think that we can ban particular types of alcohol easily; it would be simple for people to produce alternatives that had essentially the same effect.
During my own teenage days, young people used to get hold of all sorts of things such as Eldorado sherry, which is probably quite pleasant, but is not supposed to be drunk in pints at a time, as some of my young friends used to do. There was a drink in Glasgow called Lanliq, which I think was produced by the same company, and it was pure firewater. Young people who could not afford more expensive forms of intoxication often got dragged into the Lannie queues.
Citizens, be they under or over 18, should not be intimidated by others drinking in public places. That is anti-social and, if the Bill does nothing other than prevent that, thus giving people a little more peace in their streets and in their communities, it will achieve a great deal. I hope that it achieves more and leads to a reduction in under-age drinking and excessive drinking generally. I also hope that it will lead to better behaviour by youngsters.
The Bill is consistent with our general approach to community safety orders, which are intended to give people peace in their environment. No one would claim that legislation will turn things around overnight: it is a matter of making a start and trying to improve difficult situations.
I was impressed by the effect of banning alcohol at football grounds; I am not able to make the same argument in the context of cricket grounds, because I have been a football spectator all my life. A football ground is private, but it is comparable to a public place and I can remember when people were allowed to take alcohol into


grounds. There was much aggravation, intimidation and harassment of decent football supporters by people who, when they were not intoxicated, were reasonable citizens. People who are intoxicated, especially when they are in large groups, can be incited into committing acts that they would not otherwise commit. That means that they are, at best, anti-social at a football ground and, at worst, committing criminal offences.
My experience at football grounds convinces me that, if access to alcohol can be stopped in some situations, it will lead to better behaviour and peace in that environment. That is an important reason for giving the Bill a Third Reading. Time will tell whether it is effective, but I hope that it has the impact intended.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): In one way or another, we seem to have had a somewhat boozy morning. We have debated alcohol in two Bills, but the subjects that we have debated have had more to do with where alcohol can cause considerable problems and nuisance, such as in public places or in the closed environment of a prison.
The question of testing for alcohol, which we discussed earlier, applies to some extent to this Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on the Bill, which he has taken through the various stages with skill, expertise and considerable commitment. I suspect that some parents might also like a power to test for alcohol. Although it cannot be provided in the Bill, it is right to reassure parents that the police will be on their side in helping them to deal with a problem that can occur from time to time with young people. Sometimes, parents do not know whether their teenage children are consuming alcohol in a public place: the parents may know that their children are out, but they cannot be sure what the children are getting up to.
As we know, most youngsters behave in a community-spirited way and perhaps contribute more to society than previous generations. I would be the last to criticise their contribution, but it is important that the Bill gives the police power to ascertain the name and address of a young person from whom they confiscate alcohol. I am also confident that, if the matter is brought to the attention of parents, as is allowed for by the Bill, the vast majority will confront their children about it. That might lead to greater family understanding of a controlled and sensible approach to alcohol.
Alcohol can, of course, lead youngsters to get themselves into a lot of trouble and do things that they bitterly regret later. Drunkenness may lead to general bad behaviour, shouting at passers-by and oafishness, but it can also lead to criminal activity, as we heard in an earlier debate today. Research shows that many crimes are alcohol-related.
Apart from the danger that young people can take that step towards crime, it is also true that many members of the public will find the sight of youngsters the worse for drink somewhat disturbing; they can be offensive. I am sorry that my hon Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is not here today, for he has taken a considerable interest in the Bill. On Second Reading, he

revealed that he is 5 ft 5 in tall. That is a very good height to be, but I hope that I am not alone in noticing that young people these days seem to come a lot bigger than that. Lads of just 13 or 14 can seem very threatening when they are fooling about and behaving badly because they have had too much to drink; so, for that matter, can young girls—this is not a problem that relates only to boys.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made clear, there is currently a loophole in the law. The Licensing Act 1964 prohibits young people under 18 from purchasing alcohol in licensed premises, and adults from buying alcohol to give to young people to drink in licensed premises, but it does not prohibit young people from consuming alcohol in any place other than licensed premises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to deregulation, and, as the Minister with responsibility in the Home Office for deregulation—particularly licensing—I can say that applying extra restrictions is something that I consider carefully. Deregulation can work only if it is based on a need to continue to protect the public from abuses that can occur. Getting that balance right is difficult for the Government to achieve. The Bill is an important component and does not necessarily attack the continued need to investigate deregulation opportunities.
Although the police take enforcement of existing legislation very seriously, if they see young people who appear the worse for drink, they are restricted in what they can do because the young people and any adults with them are not committing an offence. The police have, of course, been trying to do their best. I know that all hon. Members are well aware of the initiative started by the police in Weymouth, to which my hon. Friend referred, which was a response to the problem of under-age drinking in public areas.
The initiative involved videoing children drinking alcohol and then taking them back to their parents, who were then shown the video. It has been a great success and has encouraged parents to take responsibility for their children. I find it particularly encouraging that parents have been very ready to do that, and few of the youngsters who were videoed have come to the attention of the police again.
However, officers do not always have a video camera to hand. The police need a quick, on-the-spot solution that can be used at any time. That is what the Bill provides. Once enacted, it will be available to an officer throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We extended the Bill to Northern Ireland in Committee. A similar measure for Scotland is contained in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. Any officer who is concerned by a group of youngsters who are drinking will be able to act immediately to stop the problem.
The Bill has been considered with great thoroughness in Committee, and I compliment all hon. Members who were on that Committee on their diligence in carrying out their task. I remind the House that the Bill gives the police the power to confiscate alcoholic drinks, or those that appear to be alcoholic, from any person under the age of 18 if they are in a public place or, indeed, a place to which they have unlawfully gained access. It also gives the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone who has reached the age of 18 if the police have grounds to believe that the person concerned will give it to a young person in their company.
The House will note that the Bill gives the power of confiscation to any police officer. As the House will recall, before the Bill was drawn up we consulted widely. The consultation paper originally suggested that the police officer should be in uniform. The Association of Chief Police Officers responded by saying that that could cause problems. It considered that there might be times when a plain-clothes officer would wish to make use of the power, so the Bill has been drafted in that way and the power applies to any officer.
The House will also note that the police are given a power to confiscate anything that is, or that the constable reasonably believes to be, intoxicating liquor. That is so there can be no argument about whether a drink is alcoholic. We had a long debate about that in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was concerned that the police might confiscate something that was not alcoholic. I appreciated his concerns. We discussed the difficulties that the police might have in distinguishing between alcopops and what might turn out to be just lemon pop—in other words, a soft drink.
I do not want to debate alcopops now—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do so—save to say that I share my hon. Friends' concern. I welcome the initiative taken by the Portman Group; indeed, I spoke to its director, Jean Coussins, just a few days ago. The House should continue to monitor the matter closely, because some of the industry's assurances have not been satisfactory.
There was one flaw in the Bill, which was spotted by my hon. Friend for Bristol, North-West. In the Bill as originally drafted, an officer had the right to dispose of the intoxicating liquor which was surrendered to him. My hon. Friend asked whether the officer had the right to dispose of a drink that he genuinely believed to be intoxicating, but about which he was mistaken. Now, it might be said that that was unlikely, or even that it could not be proven, because the evidence would be literally down the drain, but we did not want there to be any doubt about the police powers.
It would be unfortunate if someone with a bent for litigation were to rootle around in a waste bin, find the can from which the police officer had poured away the drink and then, assuming that there was a drop or two left in the bottom, send that off for analysis. He might strike lucky—no alcohol would be found. He could then try to bring a suit against the police for wrongful confiscation. Obviously, we do not want to run that risk, even if it is a remote one. An amendment was accepted in Committee giving the police the power to dispose of anything that was surrendered to them.
The House will also note that the police have the power to confiscate the alcohol in any public place. That is an important matter, because what is a public place? It is, of course, a place to which, at the material time, the public

any section of the public has access on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission. It is important to ensure the police have that power, whether the youngsters are in a park, sitting on a bench in the street, congregated around the bus station, outside a take-away, in a shopping mall or cinema, or trespassing in someone's garden or in school grounds, when they should not be there.
It is an offence under the Bill for a person either to refuse to hand over the alcohol or to refuse to given his or her name and address when requested to do so. In Committee, we debated the nature of the fine if a person refused to do so. It was important to set it at a sensible level—currently £500. The Bill also gives the police a power of arrest. That should be used in extremis, but it is essential that that power is available to them.
I hope that the Bill will lead to fewer young people coming before the courts, because youngsters will not go on to commit the kind of offences that we know they commit when drunk. They should quickly learn that they will not be permitted to drink in public. The fact that we are not adopting a criminal approach in the initial stage of the Bill's implementation is the right way to deal with the problem when it occurs.
A discretionary power is available to the police. They do not have to confiscate alcohol. There may be an occasion when a group of young people have a picnic to celebrate their A-level results and drink a spot of cider. An officer may suspect that one or two of them are under 18. The Licensing Act 1964 provides that youngsters under the age of 18 but who have reached the age of 16 may consume beer, or cider, or perry on licensed premises provided they do so with a meal. If that group of youngsters are behaving themselves and are not drunk, the officer may properly decide to use his discretion and turn a blind eye to the fact that some of them look a trifle young. Similarly, if he sees a family on the beach and one of the children has a sip of wine, he will not be expected to go and remove it. For such legislation to work, a certain amount of common sense is required. I am proud of the fact that our police forces are extremely sensible in their approach; we can rely on them to apply common sense.
I feel confident that the legislation will help to improve the quality of life of many of our constituents. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said about all the things that are not available in Lichfield, but he missed an important one: Lichfield does not have a Labour Member of Parliament, which is an extremely good thing for his area.
I am pleased that the Bill has all-party support. The way in which the debate has been conducted has been an excellent example of all-party co-operation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Road Traffic Reduction Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I moved Second Reading, I explained that we had to consider many problems and introduce legislation to try to overcome them. I listed some of those problems, not least that of congestion on our roads, which is now estimated to cost British industry about £19 billion a year. Industry suffers further from the cost of days lost at work due to road accidents—one estimate puts the cost to industry at a further £6.5 billion.
There are also health problems: we know that about 15 million people suffer ill health as a result of pollution from traffic on our roads. Sadly, at least one estimate suggests that as many as 10,000 people a year are dying prematurely because of pollution from road traffic.
On the wider environmental front, road traffic causes other problems. It contributes significantly to global warming. Road traffic also significantly depletes our scarce resources. About one third of all our energy is consumed by road traffic and about 80 per cent. of that by cars on our roads.
There are significant problems, which we need to address. As many people and organisations wanted to address those problems, I was not too surprised to find that there was wide support for the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Some 235 hon. Members from both sides of the House signed an early-day motion. Other supporters include the National Trust, the Countryside Commission, the National Play Council, the townswomen guilds, Friends of the Earth and the Green party—those last two organisations played a significant part in the early drafting of the Bill.
I should like to pay particular tribute to Mr. Ron Bailey from Friends of the Earth, who has played a significant role at all stages of the Bill's development. About 240 local authorities have supported the measures contained in the Bill. I do not know whether or not Mr. George Spink, whose name has cropped up so frequently during today's deliberations, is a supporter of the Bill but, given the wide support for the measure, it is likely that he is.
Although many organisations supported the Bill's broad principle and saw the need to overcome many of the problems that I have mentioned, a number of organisations and individuals had some concerns about the Bill as it was formulated and presented on Second Reading. I am therefore delighted to report that, in a productive sitting, the Committee was able to address many of concerns expressed by those organisations, and by the Minister for Railways and Roads on Second Reading. At this point, I should like to put on record my tribute to the Minister for the gracious, constructive and helpful way in which he entered into discussions with me and the other promoters of the Bill to make sure that we were able to find amendments that would satisfy the concerns that he and others had expressed and address those felt by some other organisations.
As a result, three main changes have been made to the Bill since Second Reading. First, in Committee we agreed that it would be inappropriate at this stage to have on the face of the Bill specific reference to national targets. There are many—I confess to being one—who believe that it is a good idea to have national targets for road traffic reduction, but nevertheless the Minister and others put forward convincing arguments as to why it was inappropriate to include them on the face of the Bill, and the Committee accepted that. Secondly, for reasons that are fairly clear, and because there are different arrangements in Northern Ireland, it was decided to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Thirdly, we ensured that much of the material that had appeared on the face of the Bill would, in future, appear in guidance.
As a result of those changes, I am pleased to be able to say that many of the organisations that had expressed concerns about the Bill now say that they are far more satisfied and I shall quote two of them. The note prepared for hon. Members today by the Automobile Association says of the Bill:
we hope its seemingly genuine intent can lead to sensible and popular local schemes being funded and implemented. We do not wish to stand in its way and hope the efforts of those that have carefully steered it through a difficult path are rewarded.
The Confederation of British Industry has also accepted the broad thrust of the Bill as it now stands. Understandably, the CBI begins its notes by saying that it is
deeply concerned about traffic problems such as congestion … However, the Bill as it now stands has been significantly improved, and many of the problems associated with the original draft have now been overcome. In particular the greater flexibility given to councils should allow them to take better account of local conditions.
In passing, I point out that one of the other changes that we made in Committee was to restrict the requirements contained within the Bill to those principal councils that are themselves local authorities. However, we rightly made it clear—as did the Minister in his contributions in Committee—that those principal councils will be expected to consult widely with other local authorities in their area, and I hope that that will include, for example, parish councils. We also said that there must be consultation with other organisations; specific reference was made to the importance of consultation with businesses—something about which the CBI is understandably concerned and keen to ensure—and with organisations such as environmental groups in the highway authority's locality. The CBI concludes its note by saying:
If the Bill now acts to focus attention on the need for action and investment to tackle transport problems then this would be welcomed.
Indeed, many people will welcome the contents of the Bill.
It has been suggested by some that, because we were prepared to make several amendments in Committee, the contents and powers of the Bill have been significantly watered down. I want to disabuse the House of that idea. In my view, and that of very many members of the Committee, the main thrust of the Bill is retained in the revised version.
It is interesting to read some of the comments that were made in Committee; specifically, I shall quote those of the Minister. Referring to new clause 1, now clause 2—the kernel of the Bill—he said:
I do not believe that the clause represents a significant weakening of the obligations that we place on highway authorities. After all, a highway authority must, at such time as the Secretary of State directs, prepare
'a report containing an assessment of … traffic … and a forecast of growth …. '
It must also specify targets for reducing traffic, or the rate of growth, except under subsection (5), where an authority might determine that it is not appropriate, in which case it must give its reasons. As I said earlier, it will not be sufficient for an authority to say that that is a load of rubbish and refuse to do it. In preparing its report, a highway authority is also required to have regard to the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue which will give a clear steer as to what is required.
That quote and subsections (3) and (6) of clause 2 are very important indeed, because in both it is clear that all local authorities, in drawing up their reports and developing their targets, must have regard to the guidance that will be issued by the Minister.
The Minister kindly and generously prepared in advance of Committee, and circulated to all members of the Committee, a draft of the main headings, so we had a very clear idea what the guidance that he is proposing will cover. The Minister made it clear, in his contribution in Committee and in the headings in that guidance, that much of the content of the suggestions that appeared in the Bill on Second Reading will now appear in the guidance, so that local authorities may consider the measures that were suggested. Local authorities that have developed successful schemes, perhaps in consultation with local businesses and other organisations, will thereby be able to share what they have learned with a wider audience.
As the Minister said in Committee, and as has made clear in the guidance notes, there will be a clear link between the funding that local authorities receive and their proposals for road traffic reduction. It is important to remind the House of what he said in Committee.
I shall attempt to make it clear in the guidance that I expect there to be a clear direct link between the bids for resources made through the TPP process and the authority's reasons for believing that that investment would help to achieve the targets. That is a fairly persuasive power. If I felt that an authority were dismissing the requirements in a cavalier way, it would not receive funding for its projects. Those who made a case for investment that was well reasoned, well thought out and closely related to their targets would be rewarded."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 19 February 1997; c. 29–30.]
It is clear from the contributions of all hon. Members, but especially that of the Minister in Committee, that the main thrust of the Bill as originally proposed has been retained in the Bill as it stands on Third Reading, backed up by the guidance. If that is correct, I hope that the Bill receives a Third Reading and quickly passes through its remaining stages. It will be a major step forward in the fight, which we must all join, to reduce the traffic on our roads.
Only yesterday, I was out with a camera crew making a film about the Bill. For part of the film, I got into the cab of a lorry to interview the driver and to discuss some of the problems of road traffic. It was perhaps ironic that we were unable to do all the filming that we had planned because the lorry, its driver and I were stuck in a traffic

jam for more than three quarters of an hour. While we were stuck, I talked to some of the drivers of the other business vehicles. One man was sitting with all his papers spread out, wisely using the time to get on with his paperwork.
I asked another man, who worked for a courier firm, how long he had been there and what impact the jam would have on him. He said he had been there more than three quarters of an hour and pointed out that courier firms like his have to work to tight deadlines—they have to deliver on time or they do not get paid. He said that he would lose business and income because of the congestion.
Other motorists talked about their problems because of the shortage of public transport in their area. One thing that I hope will happen because of the Bill and the measures contained in it is a further development of public transport in many parts of the country.
The Bill is a major step forward. It will begin to tackle the problem from the grass roots up, and will be developed by those who know their local areas best—the local authorities. It will develop measures that will make the quality of life much better for all our constituents. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading.

Mr. Peter Luff: I find myself in something of a dilemma, as I was on Second Reading. Every hon. Member accepts that there is a problem with road traffic congestion but, just because there is a problem, it does not mean that the first solution that someone brings along is necessarily the right one. To raise a voice of doubt is not to say that the problem does not exist, but to ask whether the solution has been correctly identified.
Having said that, I should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for the way in which he has handled himself during the progress of the Bill. He has adopted a realistic approach and, as a result, looks likely to achieve Third Reading.
I should have liked the Bill to receive more scrutiny—that is not merely a plea because I was not a member of the Standing Committee, as I would have liked to be. We had a short Second Reading debate for such important legislation, and now we are now doomed to have a short Third Reading debate.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill falls victim to the great delusion that legislation can of itself change the world. I do not believe that. Legislation has a role—to control or regulate where possible and sensible and to punish a misdemeanour. I am not convinced that the Bill does either. Nor am I convinced by the need for this legislation.

Mr. David Congdon: My hon. Friend has picked up the essence of the dilemma about the Bill, which I am happy to support—the danger of it being a wish list. We wish road traffic to be reduced but the biggest driver—if my hon. Friend will pardon the pun—of the increase in road traffic is the increase in gross domestic product and economic growth. Regardless of what plans councils put in place, that increase will have the greatest significant impact on traffic growth. The best way to reduce traffic—I hope that no one does it—would


be to vote in a Labour Government, who would destroy the economy, so we would not get the growth or the traffic.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has made a party political point, but he is right. It is inevitable that traffic levels will continue to grow, and those who pretend otherwise are flying in the face of economic forces that are beyond the power of this House to control—even, I suspect, in the unfortunate event of a Labour Government. People's demand for increased personal mobility would still lead to increased traffic growth.
I fully share the ambition of the hon. Member for Bath to reduce traffic congestion, particularly in towns. He and I come from historic cities, where traffic congestion is a problem—a greater problem in Bath than in Worcester, in my view. Any reduction in congestion is a good thing, as is any reduction in pollution and any improvement in air quality. Reduced congestion is likely, however, to lead to an increase rather than a decrease in accidents, as traffic starts moving faster and does more damage to pedestrians.
The Bill has a noble objective. I am a railway enthusiast; I am vice-president of the Severn Valley railway, a modest shareholder in Railtrack and an enthusiast for the rail privatisation process. I believe that improving public transport is a helpful way of reducing demand for road traffic. Brian Scott, managing director of Great Western Trains, said that his ambition was to empty the M4. I suspect that that ambition will do more than the Bill.
Roger Macdonald of Thames Trains, another private railway franchise that now serves my constituency, publishes bus connections in his timetable. The old British Rail never did that, but it is a powerful way to help people gain better access to public transport and thus reduce the use of cars. Incidentally, he has also introduced Sunday morning services, which British Rail said could not be done. Improved public transport through good privately run railways has much more impact on road traffic than the Bill.
I said on Second Reading that I feared that the Bill was anti-car. On balance, I am satisfied that it is not, although the House should send out the message that we are not anti-car. The car is profoundly important for the freedom of movement of our society—a fundamental right in a modern, sophisticated, industrial democracy. I come from the west midlands, so I must recognise the large dependence of my constituents and those around me on the manufacturing processes in many midlands motor vehicle factories that build cars and supply components.
I was delighted to see an article by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in The Times in January, in which he said:

I see the car as a vehicle for increasing choice, freedom and opportunity.
He then made a particularly important point:
Wider car ownership has meant a huge expansion in the availability of employment, particularly for disabled people, who would find it a real struggle to use public transport.
The car brings huge benefits to our society, and the House should leave the world outside in no doubt that it shares that view.
The trouble is that we all want to reduce other people's car use while being allowed to use our own car freely. That is the hypocrisy of so many positions taken in this

great debate. It is certainly the hypocrisy practised locally by Hereford and Worcester county council. The chairman of the transport committee lives in the north of the county and favours regional government. He has no great interest in the problems of the south of the county and certainly no interest in the city of Worcester, which was one reason for beginning the ill-thought-through experiment to reduce traffic. I discussed that plan previously in the House and at a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, when he took a most intelligent view of it. The plan was driven through with no effective consultation with local people. It took no account of major changes that are about to be implemented: the Worcester western bypass opens shortly, and there is a large quantity of Government money to build a much-needed relief road for the western side of Worcester.
I was proud to bring a delegation to the Minister and to face down the arrogance of the Lib-Lab pact in Worcestershire, which has been shocked by the outcome of the meeting, and has lost its package bid for this year. That is good. Not only has it stopped ill-thought-through schemes on which inadequate consultation has been conducted, not only has it delayed the destruction of a playing field for a park-and-ride scheme in a totally inappropriate part of the city, but, miracle of miracles, it has forced the county council to start to listen to local people. It now says that the views of Councillor Derek Prodger, leader of the Conservative group on Worcester city council and a county councilor—that the problems could be addressed in other ways and the schemes modified—could be the right approach after all.
Bizarrely, Worcester city council wants to frustrate the development of Worcester's new hospital because the hospital could generate increased traffic volumes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that important point when he replies. Inevitably, developing areas will experience increases in traffic. A new factory or housing estate will inevitably cause increased traffic levels, as will Worcester's new hospital. All that is happening in Worcester without the incentive provided by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bath read out the Minister's comments in Committee about how funding was likely to work in the future. It will increase the pressure on councils which, like Hereford and Worcester, I believe are anti-car, to behave irresponsibly and in a way that may damage the local economy.
We are in a desperate battle for survival in Worcester. We face the competition from Merry Hill, an out-of-town shopping centre built for the car. Parking there is easy. Cheltenham, down the road, represented by a colleague of the hon. Member for Bath, is a user-friendly city for the car, where parking is relatively easy. People will be driven out of Worcester if our county council, under the incentives of the Bill, undertakes ill-thought-through schemes which drive people into the arms of Merry Hill and Cheltenham.
I mentioned hypocrisy, and the fact that we want to reduce other people's use of the car, but not our own. Go to county hall car park any working day of the week and see the hundreds and hundreds cars there, belonging to county council employees and councillors. A council that was serious about reducing traffic would not rely on Bills such as the one under discussion, but would impose car parking charges on its employees, so that they were inhibited from using cars. It would introduce incentives


to encourage its employees to cycle or walk to work, or to use the good bus service to county hall. The council car park is stuffed full of cars, while the council tries to stop my constituents getting about in their own city.
I have deep reservations about the Bill. I accept that it has been improved, but I worry about the impact on local bypasses, for example. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads suggested in Committee that bypasses for villages—I think particularly of the Wyre Piddle bypass, which I discussed with him—would not be adversely affected by provisions in the Bill. Traffic reduction in a village like Wyre Piddle might lead to increased traffic levels elsewhere, but reducing traffic in that village is crucial to the well-being of people there.
Let me labour the consultation point. The people of Wyre Piddle have been listened to. Their parish council has been effective and, to be fair to the county council, their voice has been heard. I have other parish councils in the Worcester city area, in Wornden and St. Peter's, which are not looked upon particularly favourably by the Labour city council.
I am concerned that the guidance issued by the Department of Transport under the Bill should take full account of the views of parish councils, which are overlooked in too many local planning issues that affect those communities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me that, in the consultation required under the Bill, there will be a special place for parish councils, as I hope there will be for businesses and schools.
Schools rely increasingly on the school run. My son goes to school by car, burdened down by an incredible volume of books, bags and so on. It is not possible for him to walk or take a bus to school. He relies on the car. Ill-thought-through traffic schemes in one part of Worcester could make my son's and daughter's schools inaccessible to people with cars.
I hope that there will be consultation with businesses, schools and parish councils. The consultation process could be the most important aspect. By forcing communities to examine the issues, it may produce intelligent debate about ways of reducing road traffic, which might be the healthiest outcome of the Bill. Building a consensus locally about what is needed, through good, effective—not grudging—consultation might be a positive outcome of the Bill.
I accept that the Confederation of British Industry has changed its position on the Bill to some extent since Second Reading. It states that the Bill has been significantly improved in Committee, but comments—fairly, I think—that the real need is to increase investment in the infrastructure and public transport of our country, not to use quick-fix legislative devices such as the Bill. That is happening in the railways through privatisation, and in the road building programme through the private finance initiative.
The British Road Federation, too, has modified its objections to the Bill. It states:
The latest version is brief"—
that in itself is a commendation for a Bill—
and an improvement on its predecessor.
It expresses concern, however, about whether the Bill sets the appropriate tests to establish whether our environment is improving. Should we be targeting congestion, or air

quality, for which the Department already has targets? Are road traffic levels really the crucial test? I share that doubt.
I shall not weary the House any longer, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak on this important Bill. I still have reservations about it. It betrays a touching faith in the power of legislation to change the world. However, it is not as bad as it was on Second Reading, so I have no objection to its further progress.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for persevering with this matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on bringing the Bill to this stage. I join him in thanking Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues, including congestion, pollution, and the cost of both to the economy and to personal health. While I share the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that benefits—such as increased personal mobility and social advantages—have accrued from wide accessibility to the motor car, we cannot continue to respond to road building in a totally unplanned and demand-led manner. We know that building more and more roads would lead to greater demand and increased car use, until eventually the M25 would cover the entire south of England.
We must tackle the problem by making it easier to use other means of transport. The Government and local authorities can achieve that aim through co-operative investment in public transport schemes and certain areas of planning. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to bad planning policy, but we should look at examples of good planning. For example, I commend the recent decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse the car parking extension that was planned for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, which would have encouraged people to travel to that hospital by private transport.
However, if the Secretary of State is correct in curtailing the availability of parking at the hospital, it must also be correct for Government to ensure that there are adequate public transport facilities for people to travel to the hospital. Unfortunately, the privatisation of public transport has prevented adequate provision, and the health care trust must subsidise the cost of public transport to the hospital, which is crazy. [Interruption.]
Despite some muttering from Conservative Members, there is a great deal of constructive all-party consensus about the issue—particularly in Committee. We could not have had this debate four or five years ago. I pay tribute to organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 and to those people who have adopted less conventional methods of drawing our attention to the dangers of ever-increasing car usage. They have played a constructive role—although I do not expect all Conservative Members to agree with me.
A few years ago, the Government proposed to build a motorway in my constituency through a site of special scientific interest at Oxleas Wood. They have now withdrawn that proposal, but I do not share Conservative Members' confidence in the private finance initiative. Although the Government have dropped their plans to


build a motorway across the Thames in east London—which would have doubled car traffic in my constituency and in Eltham—they support a private sector design, finance, build and operate initiative for a toll bridge in that area.
I agree with the comments the hon. Member for Worcester about the availability of car parking. It is a hidden subsidy on the car user and, if it were taken into account when assessing the relative costs of public and private transport, it would tilt the scales in favour of public transport. Local authorities should examine that matter in terms of the guidance that they must issue under the Bill. I do not agree that the Bill is anti-bypass. The Minister and I made that point in response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). In some cases, a bypass may reduce congestion and pollution and increase quality of life.
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has referred to transport sustainability and the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. It has said that, if road traffic is to do its pro rata share of reducing national emissions of carbon dioxide, vehicle mileage must be reduced by between 20 per cent. and 33 per cent. Local authorities can play an important part in producing plans that could lead to a reduction in car usage. We are not opposed to car ownership but we are trying to reduce reliance upon the private vehicle while improving public transport.
As the hon. Member for Worcester said, accessibility to schools should not be accompanied by bad planning. Local authorities can do a great deal to encourage shared car use and safe routes to school. There are many examples of good practice in many areas.
I welcome the decisions that the Secretary of State has taken more recently against out-of-town shopping centres. These centres have increased car usage and have reduced the quality of life of many people in city areas who do not have access to a private motor vehicle. In many instances they have lost shops, the local post office, the local chemist and the rest. Those people should have their interests taken into account.
I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I, too, am sorry that targets have not been set out in the Bill, as we would have liked. That, however, is not an argument for opposing the Bill. The measure is a good first step in the right direction. I hope that in the next Parliament we shall build upon it.
There are benefits to be obtained from sound planning policies, including encouragement to use public transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South mentioned his twin town of Karlsruhe, where passengers can use a tram and arrange for the driver to telephone for a taxi, which will pick them up on leaving the tram. There are many imaginative proposals to enable local authorities to work with and develop public transport undertakings and cab operators.
I commend the Bill. It is the first step on the right road. I hope that it will receive support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have a personal interest because I am chairman of the all-party

urban affairs group. I have no financial interest. At the same time, I have been concerned for many years about the vital issue of reducing traffic in our cities as an agent of economic growth, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon).
I very much support the spirit that lies behind the Bill and I am glad that the measure has been introduced. It is clear that the Bill will stimulate debate. With great respect, I do not agree with the proposed solution as a whole. At the same time, however, I agree with part of it. If we only debate these great issues, having been stimulated by my friend, if I may so call him, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he has done us a service. I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his interventions in Committee when we considered the Education Bill. I found the hon. Gentleman's contributions to be helpful and constructive. I was muzzled as a mere parliamentary private secretary, but I listened carefully to him.
Road traffic reduction is subject to about eight principles, which I shall go through quickly. There is a series of rights and wrongs that represent the way to go forward. I have many points to make because I have thought about the issues over many years. First is the guiding principle that we should have freedom to choose. The individual should be free to choose the best way of reducing road traffic and emissions, for example. We do not want to get into the French and/or socialist technique of dirigisme, of control from the centre—"You may not use your car or bus, whatever, on the streets."
We should reduce traffic not only for the eminent reasons that are stated in the excellent document from the Library, but because of my second principle, which has to do with the character of our neighbourhoods and cities. That is being destroyed by the practice of in-filling between houses, which has been the guiding rule of planners. As a consequence, more and more cars are on the street. The spaces by the side of our homes where cars could be parked have been used for more houses. Lateral thinking is required from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, so that planning and transport decisions can be linked.
My third principle concerns the interchange of transport—intermodality is the modern phrase—which is desperately important. To my horror and shame, because it occurred under a Conservative Government, Liverpool Street station, the great cathedral to modern railways, was refurbished without provision for a car park. No thought was given to providing adequate interchange between different modes of transport. How many hon. Members know of a bus stop, apart from the out-of-city, park-and-ride facilities, that has a dedicated car park? People have not thought through the problem of intermodality: changing from a car to public transport. That applies right through the system.
No group of people in Imperial college in London or in the Department of Transport is dedicated to intermodality. There are dedicated groups to study transport, water, rail, road and air, but there is no dedicated group to consider ways of getting people from one means of transport to another. There should be, and we should have a debate about it.
My fourth principle is the provision of more comfortable transport. We should think about comfort in transport to magnetise people away from their cars—their metal capsules—and into public transport. I have thought


for many years that the Thames could be an amazing facility for public transport. Boats could come up from Woolwich, on which breakfast could be served. They could be comfortable boats of the future, and could have car parks at the access points. There is scope for greater comfort in public transport to encourage people to use it.
My fifth principle is that councillors throughout the country should be given guidance on best practice. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the practice in Germany.
My sixth principle is the better use of science: reference to that has already been made. The experiment with hopper buses is a fascinating example of the better use of public transport, and has led to much reduced emissions. They could be used by elderly folk or people who would otherwise be tempted to use their cars for lack of comfortable transport. We should be imaginative and use science better.
My seventh principle relates to what the hon. Member for Bath said, with which I partly agree. We should put this matter on the agenda of every council. Years ago, I was impressed by the fact that a number of key companies around the country improved their environmental standards merely by putting concern for the environment on the agenda of every meeting of directors. Traffic reduction must be put on the agenda of local authorities.
My eighth and last principle is that we must not go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Bath, which would make more work for bureaucrats. They may report to local councils every year, but that is not the stimulus we need. It is not the science that we need, and this is not the right Bill—although the hon. Gentleman has stimulated me and others to debate the matter. I happen to believe that this is the wrong Bill, and I am afraid that I am one of those who oppose it, but for the thought-out reasons that I have explained.

Mr. David Congdon: It was very interesting listening to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee dealing with the Bill, and I listened to his thoughts on this important subject at that time. The most ironic part of his speech today was when he talked about going out with a television crew. I thought to myself, "I bet they didn't go on a bus or a train." Sure enough, they ended up in a traffic jam.
That sums up everything one needs to say about the Bill. No one can disagree with it, because who does not want to see traffic reduced? But I have to say that, despite all the support it has received—and I am one of those who support it—it has the whiff of gesture politics. It contains a wish list of things we would like to see but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) made clear, we want other people to get out of their cars and go by train or bus so we can make our journeys more quickly. That is the heart of the difficulty with a Bill of this nature.
A fundamental point which came out following some of the representations we received was that although it is laudable to try to reduce traffic levels, it is the wrong target. A far more important target is the level of congestion. It does not matter if an extra car is on a road where traffic is flowing freely. Some people disagree with that, but many journeys made by car are economic and

efficient—and some are far more efficient than journeys by public transport. I can give an illustration of this. Most journeys made outside peak transport times—particularly journeys made during the evening—across country or across towns are made by car.

Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend want us to go down the route towards the system used in Paris and other continental cities, which requires delivery lorries to deliver during the hours of nightfall?

Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What causes the real problems in our cities and on our roads? Traffic volume causes problems, but the crucial thing is people parking in bad positions. Many of the problems are caused by delivery lorries and vans parking near junctions or traffic lights to deliver during the day. There are difficulties in taking that too far, because some people would not like heavy lorries in residential areas at night, but a balance must be struck.
That leads me to another important point. The emphasis should be more on improving the flow of traffic, hence reducing congestion, rather than on volume. I have lived in London all my life, and it is fair to say that London—particularly south London—has had little improvement to its road network. I am not arguing for massive new road building. I was opposed to the south London assessment studies, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and other Members would have been. We have had little in terms of simple junction improvements to significantly reduce congestion.
How often does one find when one drives that the traffic grinds to a halt either because a delivery lorry is parked on a junction, or because someone is wanting to turn right, thus preventing traffic from flowing? A lot more could be done to improve the capacity of the road system in a city such as London, without major new road building.
Some of the approaches of traffic plans and traffic managers in town halls slow up traffic and cause congestion. This is a delicate issue. In residential roads, it is right to want to slow up cars. On roads that are used by more traffic, the balance is too far the other way. Certainly, in my area of Croydon, there seems to be a fascination and obsession with putting "Keep Left" signs at every point down a road, which effectively create a barrier. It is dangerous, because buses have to weave in and out. Although it slows down the traffic, which one could say is a good objective, and aids safety, it affects the flow and increases congestion.
Let me turn again to the objective of the Bill: reducing the volume of road traffic. What I am not clear about, and it did not come out clearly in Committee, is how many of the people who support the Bill are thinking in terms of simply reducing the rate of growth in traffic, which is a laudable objective, and how many are unrealistically thinking that, somehow, we can reduce the absolute level of traffic.
That crucial point needs to be addressed because, as I said in my intervention, the big driver behind the growth in traffic is increased wealth. In that sense, it does not matter what local authorities put in these plans. If our economy achieves good levels of economic growth—2.5 per cent., 3 per cent., or let us say 3.5 per cent. even; I would love to see that, although some people might


not—as sure as night follows day, there would be big increases in traffic volumes. Conversely, we may want an absolute reduction in the level of traffic.
Let us return to the economic climate of the 1960s and 1970s, when we did not achieve good economic performance. If we went back to the standard of living then, we would have much lower levels of traffic, as fewer people would have cars. I am sure that that cannot be the objective. People aspire to own cars and want to use them. The challenge is to ensure that we can somehow contain the negative sides of their impact.
Pollution is an important issue and is linked to that of volume. I support the Government's determination to reduce the level of pollution from transport, but again I find it ironic that, when I drive to the House, most of the time at such odd hours—it is not quite so bad on a Friday—the worst pollution seems to come from lorries and buses. I am repeatedly told that public transport is marvellous and clean. It would be a brave person who would say that buses are clean. They seem to spew out filth from their diesel engines. I have a real concern about that.
Pollution is a problem and it is a legitimising factor behind the Bill. I readily concede that, because, as I have said, anything that can be done to help to restrain the rate of growth in traffic is useful, but I suspect that far more significant changes in reducing pollution will come when we get an alternative to the internal combustion engine, which surely as a society we are going to have to have. I do not want to turn the clock back, with all of us going around on horses and carts and never being able to visit people. We travel around because we want to do things.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to be allowed to intervene a second time on my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, in Victorian times, people bemoaned the fact that the congestion of the horse and cart and of carriage transport was terrible? Apparently, the stench from the manure from the horses was so noxious that a number of legal actions took place over that at the time

Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention to remind us that, back in those times, there was severe congestion from the horse-drawn transport, but, perhaps even more significantly, there was a somewhat different and perhaps more devastating pollution problem. At that time, forecasts were made, presumably by the predecessors of the Department of Transport—I do not know what it called itself in those days; perhaps the Department of the horse or something like that—that manure would be piled high to first-floor level. That never happened.
It is interesting to note that although congestion is bad, it will find its own level, in that it has to end when people cannot travel anywhere. The transport challenge is to have alternatives to the car so that people can move about their cities when they need to. I am happy to support the Bill, but with the reservation that it may not achieve its objective.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has given my views on the Bill's principles and outlined the

important changes that were made in Committee. That relieves me of the task of repeating them. I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) spoke about the fallacy into which the House often falls of believing that legislation can change the world, and always for the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) spoke about the danger of creating a wish list or of indulging in gesture politics. I had such fears about the notion of starting with the imposition of national targets. That would be gesture politics, because we do not have the policy levers to deliver such targets nationally.
Focusing on local targets and on practical local measures to achieve them makes the legislation practical. The Bill does not engage in gesture politics, but suggests practical ways to resolve problems at local level. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester cited some practical measures that have already been taken by public transport operators to increase the use of public transport by making it more convenient and accessible. Local authorities that follow the Bill and the guidance that will be issued under it will support such measures in co-operation with public transport operators, whether they are train or bus companies or both working together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester emphasised the importance of wide consultation. That is vital. If practical results are to be delivered, there must be local consensus on what is needed, what the targets should be and what is needed to achieve them. I have no difficulty whatever in joining the hon. Member for Bath in agreeing with my hon. Friend that parish councils should be included in such consultations. They should also include the business community, schools, hospitals, substantial organisations and groups of residents. They all need to be on board if the right solution to local problems is to be identified.
The Bill, as amended, recognises that some developments will generate traffic and that the effects will not automatically be deleterious. That is why the Bill requires authorities to identify the need to set targets and, in reply to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, introduce practical measures that can deliver them. Hon. Members have spoken about the British Road Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. Coincidentally, I am shortly to meet representatives of both bodies.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that the Bill is not a quick fix but a well-thought-out, longer-term strategy for striking a balance between our desire to protect the environment in which we live and which we enjoy, while ensuring that our mobility needs, personally or in the course of our economic activities, are met. We must not fall victim to stifling congestion. The Bill is not anti-car. As I said on Second Reading, if we fail to tackle the problems of congestion, that will not benefit those who need to use cars or business vehicles. Nor is this an anti-bypass measure. If traffic can be taken away from a town or village where it is inflicting a poor-quality environment and routed elsewhere without generating more traffic, that would not be contrary to the objectives of reducing traffic or traffic growth, and would be an environmental.
The hon Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the importance of sustainability and to the safer routes to school initiative which many local authorities are promoting. We need to consider safer cycle routes. When I was in Plymouth recently, I saw new cycle routes alongside major roads, and a new type of crossing called a toucan, which is not just for pedestrians but for cyclists.
Yesterday, I was in Taunton and travelled on a gas-powered bus to Bristol. The use of alternative fuels with lower emissions, particularly for public transport vehicles, is one way in which we can achieve some of our environmental objectives. At Bristol Temple Meads station, I presented a special ticket to the 10,000th Great Western passenger who had made use of its new facility to buy a bus ticket while on the train. Virgin Rail is another company introducing advance taxi bookings from the train. It is trying to make a public transport journey as seamless as a car journey where somebody walks out of the front door and stays in the car until he or she reaches the office or another destination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), in a thoughtful but brief speech, set out certain principles that he thought important. I did not note all eight of them, but I certainly agree that freedom of choice is very important. By improving the quality of public transport provision, we will extend the real choice that people have. I do not believe that many people make a conscious choice to get into a car and sit in a traffic jam. Many of them choose the car because they see no alternative.
My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of improving interchanges between different transport modes. We are seeing many good examples from private rail and bus operators, often in co-operation with enlightened local authorities that provide such facilities. My hon. Friend also made the point about the need to spread knowledge of best practice. Where there are good initiatives in some areas, that knowledge needs to be spread widely so that the same solutions can be applied elsewhere.
I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need to make better use of science, and apply technology more imaginatively. He said that he believed that it was sensible to put environmental issues on the agenda. That is what the Bill will do. It will require every traffic authority to consider the level of traffic in its area, its future trends and what needs to be done about it. He also made the point that we should not just generate more work for bureaucrats. Amending the Bill so that in England we can set targets in guidance that would be part of the annual transport policies and programme round is one way in which we can ensure that we achieve those beneficial objectives without imposing new and unnecessary burdens on local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East referred to the impact of ill-thought-out and inconsiderate parking, and the need for smaller measures to improve traffic flow on our urban roads. I agree that, in implementing traffic management and calming measures, the devil is often in the detail. One cannot simply take a particular engineering feature out of a design patent book and stick it down anywhere and expect it to work. It is often in the detail that the problems arise. That is why local consultation is vital if such measures are to be effective.
The Bill suggests targets to reduce not just the absolute level of traffic—that may be possible in some circumstances—but to reduce traffic growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East also said that there is, apparently, an inexorable link between growth of traffic and gross domestic product. We do not know which way round that relationship works, but he will be interested to know that our expert advisory committee, the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessments, has been given the remit to study that relationship. We await its findings with great interest.
I have given a brief response, but necessarily so. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Mr. Tim Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'company', insert
'other than small and medium-sized companies as defined in section 247'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 8, after 'company', insert
'other than a small or medium-sized company as defined in section 247'.

Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on his foresight in introducing the Bill. There is no doubt that British industry and the public sector face a major problem, a problem that may seem to some people to be some way off, since the millennium is nearly three years away. However, anyone who takes the trouble to study that problem will find that the solution may take longer than three years.
My hon. Friend, almost single-handedly in the House, has made a huge effort to draw the scale of the problem to the attention of industry, commerce and the Government. As a result, the United Kingdom is now rather better prepared than some other European countries; it is perhaps more on a par with the United States, which is certainly taking the problem seriously.
I entirely understand why my hon. Friend introduced the Bill. He wants every company in the country to take the problem seriously, and he wants it to be considered at the top level. He wants company directors to consider the scale of the problem, to produce an assessment and then to produce some kind of strategic solution. I endorse that approach. Every organisation that depends to any extent on information technology for the operation of its business has a great deal at stake—perhaps more than many people appreciate. It is not just the relevant business that might be at risk; business A could be brought to its knees by the failure of business B, its supplier, to tackle the problem effectively.
I was impressed by the note on the subject produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in December. It listed some examples of what could happen. I will not trouble the House with all of them, but the document stated:
In 1992, Mary Bendar of Winona … USA was invited to join a kindergarten class because she was born in '88 (she was 104 years old).
when she received that invitation. That is just one example of what can happen, but there are many more. The problem will affect every business and everyone who has a personal computer, because a great deal of that software is already out of date.
I accept the premise on which the Bill is based; therefore, it is a matter of regret that I must tell my hon. Friend that, although I understand that he has introduced the Bill to give more prominence yet to the extent of the problem, I cannot support the Bill. I am not happy about placing more burdens on companies, as the Bill proposes. The amendments go some way towards meeting that difficulty by excluding small and medium companies from the Bill's ambit. My hon. Friend may say that that would exclude the vast majority of companies—I recognise that, but I am concerned about placing extra burdens on business. My hon. Friend wants to place a formal requirement on companies to undertake a formal assessment and publish the details in their directors' report.

Mr. David Atkinson: My hon. Friend seeks to exclude the small and medium businesses from the scope of the Bill. He has made the point that it is important that those businesses that are connected to larger businesses through their computer systems should also be millennium-compliant. In doing so, he has already responded to the point that he now makes in order to try to convince the House to support his amendment. It is necessary to include in the Bill all businesses with computer systems that will be subject to problems at the millennium. To exclude the vast majority of them would negate the Bill's purpose.

Mr. Smith: I said that I was not very enthusiastic about the whole Bill, but if we are to impose extra regulations on business, those best placed to cope with them will be large organisations. I believe that large companies are starting to take the problem seriously and, if they were required to comply with the terms of my hon. Friend's Bill, there would be a trickle-down effect. They would place in their contracts with suppliers—large, medium and small—conditions requiring them to be millennium-compliant.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why did the hon. Gentleman not join us in Committee on Wednesday morning when he would have heard the Minister warn us against being stuck in an aeroplane or on the 20th floor of a building on new year's morning in 2000? There is a powerful argument for the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I fully understand that. I also understand that a car might not start on the morning of 1 January 2000. But I am not happy about using the law to impose a solution on business. I have already said that I fully understand and support my hon. Friend's objectives, but I am not convinced that the Bill is the right way to go about achieving them. That is why I tabled my amendment.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I should like to add to the praise that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for his work. He has focused the minds of the public and the professionals on the problem.
In a nutshell, the problem is that a computer system that has built into its programme the use of only two digits for the year—this year would be 97—may fail to recognise what is happening when the two digits are double O. At that time, the computer may think through


the date as 1900 or it may decide to pick any date at random—perhaps the date when the software programme was first applied—or it may shut down. As there is more than one solution, the difficulty is that the company with the computing system may not know what the reaction will be and it will need to go through each of its computing systems, line by line, to eradicate the problem. In addition, the company may have to work with every other company with which it trades around the world to ensure that they have carried out the same exercise.
This is what we call the millennium meltdown. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East raised the subject in the House and discussed it with me about 18 months ago—he and I have often been lone voices in the House. Much as I accept the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the amendment, which would exclude small companies, is a difficult one to accept.
As I said in Committee, the difficulty with the legislation is that I do not want now—with only a short time to go until 2000—to focus people's minds on legalities, the accounting profession and attempts to follow set procedures. The attention of those people, from the chief executive down, should be focused on sorting out the problem.
Different companies will have different problems. A company that uses its computers merely for word processing can correct the problem as it emerges, but a company that has hugely complex systems, such as those used for trading, will have great difficulty. Morgan Stanley has told me that it has earmarked $55 million and taken on 200 staff to deal with this issue. The difficulty will get worse as we get closer to 2000, for the simple reason that more companies will refuse to trade with companies that cannot guarantee that their own systems are millennium-compliant. The Government have said that their systems will be millennium-compliant by December 1998, and that will clearly have implications for trading and exchanging information with non-compliant systems thereafter.
The difficulties will apply equally to embedded systems, such as those in lifts, aircraft, safety control devices—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Monday 10 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third reading Read.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LICENSING (REFORM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SALE OF MEDICINES (YOUNG PEOPLE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BULL BARS (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

AIRPORTS AND AERODROMES (NOISE)BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HOLOCAUST DENIAL BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

EDUCATION (SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take points of order afterwards.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

TOWN CENTRES (INSURANCE AND RESTORATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ADOPTIVE MOTHERS (MATERNITY LEAVE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

DIGNITY AT WORK BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DISABLED PERSONS AND CARERS (SHORT-TERM BREAKS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

WASTE PREVENTION BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

VICTIMS OF CRIME BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RIGHT TO WORK BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SCHOOL INTRUDERS (CRIMINAL OFFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SUNDAYS (DANCING AND LICENSING) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

POLICE (INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

GREAT APES (PROHIBITION OF EXPERIMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not grossly demeaning of this honourable House that we are open to the accusation of ignoring even as worthy a Bill as the one to help severely handicapped children, by a Government Whip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to comment.

Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Nothing could be further to that point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 3rd March, put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1997 and Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 not later than one and a half hours after the start of proceedings on the first such Motion; and these Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock;
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 4th March, put the Questions on the four Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Forsyth relating to Local Government Finance (Scotland) not later than Seven o'clock; and
(3) at the sitting on Wednesday 5th March—

(i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism not later than Seven o'clock; and
(ii) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Libya and Iraq

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 1993, with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), I visited Iraq; we did so at our own expense. The sanctions were cruel and counter-productive, but, as my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will discuss Iraq, I shall discuss Libya, not simply because of the grave injuries to the families who lost their loved ones eight long years and two months ago, but on account of the on-going damage to British industry and our relations with the Arab world and Africa.
I do not exaggerate. I quote from Nelson Mandela's letter to the Prime Minister:
I understand that Colonel Qhaddafy is prepared to allow the individuals to be tried in Europe or elsewhere and much as I respect the integrity of your courts, I wondered whether you would not give consideration to such an alternative arrangement. In making this approach, I am conscious of the policy of your Government which you previous explained to me, but do so in the interest not only of Libya but of the continent, the Muslim world and international reconciliation.
The Prime Minister wrote to me on 30 May 1995:
I will of course be replying to your question about my correspondence with Nelson Mandela, but I am afraid I will not be agreeing to place it in the Library".
This is the ninth Adjournment debate that we have had on this subject, but it takes place in very different circumstances from those of all previous debates, because something has happened; that something is that James T. Thurman, called often Tom Thurman, who was pivotal to the whole of the Government's case on Lockerbie, has been assigned to other roles for having fabricated forensic evidence.
I ask the Minister—I warned him that I would do so—what reports the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received from the United States of the judgment that has been made on Thurman, because he is the man who, on 15 June 1990, claimed identification of the crucial timing device. He is the man who, with Williams, interrogated Narwhan Khreesat, and I am told that, at that crucial interview, the Scottish police were not welcome, and were excluded.
For 34 years, I have dealt with and known Lord Advocates. I have high regard for Crown agents, but I must say to the Crown Office, as the longest serving Scottish Member of Parliament, that I do not believe that they now have the evidence, which they claim to have, to conduct a successful court case. Indeed, I believe that the last thing they want is a trial, either in Edinburgh or in The Hague, because the professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh and many others in legal Edinburgh—including Peter Anderson, the lawyer of Simpson Marwick, who has been much involved—believe that any Scottish judge would throw out the case within hours, on the grounds that there was no case to answer.
Nothing better illustrates the weakness of Washington's case against Libya than its cynical misuse of the law to destroy the character and reputation of anyone who dares


to challenge its position on Lockerbie. Juval Aviv, the investigator for Pan Am until his report implicating the CIA was leaked to the press, was immediately subjected to a relentless campaign of harassment and vilification by the FBI. For five years, a squad of agents spent thousands of man hours raking through his affairs for something that might discredit him.
Charged last summer with faking a report to GEC in 1991—much to the surprise of GEC, which had not complained—Aviv was arrested by the FBI in a blaze of publicity designed to show that he was in the habit of producing fraudulent reports. The case against him was so obviously contrived, however, that a federal jury summarily threw it out. Concurring with the verdict, the judge observed that the charges had plainly been brought for another purpose—the inference, in his view, being that they were connected with Aviv's Lockerbie report.
Aviv has written to the Crown Office. I warned the Minister that I would ask whether the Crown Office is minded to apologise to Aviv; otherwise, it will find itself involved in a court case.
Still more scandalous has been Washington's systematic persecution of Lester Coleman III, the former American intelligence agent who publicly linked the Lockerbie disaster with the activities of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the middle east. Facing a similar trumped-up charge and a volley of death threats against himself and his family, Coleman sought asylum in Sweden, where he collaborated on a book, "Trail of the Octopus", with Don Goddard, in which he described what he had seen while stationed in Cyprus and mentioning its relevance to the Lockerbie inquiry.
On the eve of the book's publication, Coleman was indicted in New York on charges of perjury based on a sworn statement that he had made some years earlier in a civil suit by Pan Am against the United States Government. Clearly intended to deter the publishers from bringing out the book, the charges were not only as flimsy as those levelled against Aviv but entirely without precedent in United States' law.
Last October, unwilling to expose his wife and young family any longer to the rigours of life on the run, Coleman decided to return to the United States and clear his name, confident that the indictment would never stand up in court. Today, however, it begins to look as though that the charges against him will never be put to the test.
Although he was clearly subject to some risk, Coleman returned home voluntarily to stand trial. As a perjurer in a civil matter, he is hardly a threat to the community, yet bail was set at such an impossibly high level that he was left literally to rot in a federal detention centre.
In January, Coleman was diagnosed as suffering from cancer and had a malignant lump surgically removed from his left shoulder. He was sent back to prison in shackles and handcuffs with a supply of dressings, which he was left to change for himself. Inevitably, without proper treatment, he would have become grossly infected, and only the most strenuous effort on behalf of his volunteer defence attorney succeeded in getting him transferred to the prison wing of a New York public hospital, thereby almost certainly saving his life.
By returning unexpectedly to face the music, Coleman has placed his accusers in a serious quandary. To prove its case against him, Washington will be obliged to open

its Lockerbie and intelligence files, which it has strenuously resisted doing for the past eight years on the grounds of national security. As it is unlikely to change its mind now, its only alternative in the long run is to drop the charges, although that would be tantamount to admitting that they should never have been brought in the first place.
Faced with that unpalatable choice, it would seem that the Justice Department has elected to confine Coleman indefinitely in conditions that would disgrace a banana republic, in the hope that his declining health will eventually spare Washington the choice of taking either course.
Coupled with the fragility of its forensic evidence, that ruthless campaign by the FBI to destroy any witness who might seriously challenge the Anglo-American position on Lockerbie serves to call the entire case against Libya into question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I understand that those hon. Members standing have the permission of the hon. Member whose debate it is, but do they have the Minister's permission to speak?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): If they are brief, yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I congratulate on getting this Adjournment debate. He will know that I tried for my own debate on Iraq.
Mr. Phillipe Heffinck, UNICEF's representative in Iraq, said:
4,500 children under the age of five are dying every month from hunger and disease".
That is deeply shocking.
Three days after my parliamentary questions in December, the "oil for food" ban was lifted, but the main sanctions regime continues.
I pay tribute to UNICEF for its relief operations. In a briefing, UNICEF's UK committee says that there is a "great need countrywide" in Iraq. It goes on:
The health and nutrition situation remains critical.
Deteriorating living standards coupled with lack of immunity to the diphtheria toxin, in a large spread of the population over the age of five, are likely to result in a spread of the disease.
Hospitals suffer from lack of disinfectants, in addition to the shortage of essential drugs and blankets needed for the cold winter.
Deterioration in the quality of drinking water"—
which UNICEF describes as "critical"—
has resulted in an increase of diseases such as typhoid and hepatitis.
UNICEF says that 6,900 severely malnourished children under the age of five were admitted to its 14 nutrition rehabilitation centres in the space of just one month, and that that is exacerbated by high food prices. In 1995, UNICEF adopted an "anti-war agenda",


which insists on protecting the rights of children from the impact of wars, and demands that every effort be made to minimise the conflict's impact on the young. That is plainly not happening in Iraq.
On 19 December 1996, Mr. Shevlin, managing director of Sterling Fluid Systems Ltd. of Reading, wrote to me:
We have recently visited Baghdad and were shocked to see the impact that the UN sanctions are having. The lack of food and basic medicines are hurting the citizens of Baghdad. Those in power appear somewhat protected. I was left with the impression of those who are least able to influence events are suffering most.
It is shocking that the west has used the blunt sanctions weapon, with its consequences on children and the vulnerable. Other measures could have been put in place, such as suspending air links and foreign travel or freezing overseas bank accounts, targeted at the regime and the ruling elite rather than the citizenry and children. The effect of the sanctions has been barbarous.
Last week, the New Statesman referred to Madeleine Albright's campaign for the US Secretary of State's job. She responded on American television to a question about the sanctions-related deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children by saying:
We think the price is worth it.
That is what she said about the death of half a million children. It is revolting thinking, which should not be embraced by our Government.
It is time—indeed, it is long overdue—to lift those cruel sanctions.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister for allowing me to make a brief intervention.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I want to speak about Iraq, but may I first add one comment to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said about the possibility of trial in a third country for those accused of the Lockerbie bombing? Although I agree with all the points that President Mandela made in his letter to the Prime Minister, there is another argument for holding a trial in a third country at the earliest opportunity: the interests of the families of the victims of Lockerbie.
I shall speak on the situation in Iraq on the same lines as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton. I received a letter only this week from a constituent, Mrs. Laura Ann Sawyer, whose family has had a long association with Iraq and whose father was involved many years ago with the design and building of the bridge at Basra. Her teenage son has been staying for the past 18 months in Iraq with his grandparents, and became ill while he was there. That has brought home to his family in Thamesmead the implications of the sanctions.
In her letter, my constituent points to the lack of drugs, medical supplies and equipment, which she says is unforgivable. She states that that
is hurting not the government but the person in the street. It is nearly seven years since the finish of the gulf war, and the people are still being penalised for it".
She adds:
To my mind my son has had to suffer purely for political reasons, purely for the United Nations and the Western world to appear as the saviours keeping down the arch enemy Iraq. Just spare a thought

for the likes of my son and the thousands of children who have suffered and died within Iraq—can you imagine what it has been like in the hospitals trying to treat desperately ill or malnourished children caused by the blockade, without adequate medical facilities and medicines?
My constituent cites the facts that have been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton about the number of children who have died. Mrs. Sawyer calls that the "massacre of the innocents". She asks in her letter—I put this point to the Minister—
how many countries are there in the world where the leadership is not only doubtful but tyrannical and corrupt, have they sanctions imposed on them? How many military dictatorships and juntas are there in the world where the high street travel companies send out package holiday makers to their shores?
I can tell the Minister one such country: Turkey. I have been to Turkey, to Diyarbakir and to south-east Turkey. I have seen the destruction of the villages and the massacre of the Kurdish population. There is nothing that Saddam Hussein has done against his Kurdish population that has not been done by the Turkish Government against their Kurdish population. Why do we have sanctions against Iraq, but supply the arms to Turkey to persecute its Kurdish population?
Let us have an end to the hypocrisy, and let us stop the massacre of the innocents in Iraq.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the Adjournment debate—his 10th on the same subject, I believe. He asked whether sanctions against Libya are justified, in view of the doubts that he expressed about Libyan responsibility for Lockerbie.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for their contributions. I shall try to respond in the time available.
What are the hon. Gentleman's doubts? Do they really undermine the position that has been taken consistently by the Government since my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate issued the petition warrants against two alleged Libyan intelligence officers on 14 November 1991?
I begin by reminding the House that those warrants were issued after the biggest criminal investigation in British history. Two hundred and seventy innocent people from 22 countries died at Lockerbie. The evidence was gathered painstakingly by investigators from the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the United States. It led the prosecuting authorities in Scotland and the US to conclude that there were charges to be answered before a Scottish or US court.
It is not the job of the Government to prejudge the outcome of any trial, so I will not be drawn into making assumptions about whether the evidence will be enough to secure a guilty verdict. In order not to prejudice the outcome of any trial, I shall not make any comment of substance on the evidence. I am reassured that three successive Lord Advocates, who have had access to the evidence against the accused Libyans, concluded that the evidence justified, and continues to justify, the proceedings against them. It remains the Government's position that the accused Libyans should stand trial in Scotland or the US.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned Mr. Thurman, an FBI forensic scientist. The Prime Minister told the House on 20 February that the charges against the accused Libyans did not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.
The United States authorities have told us that the FBI has transferred Mr. Thurman to other duties while the activities of the FBI laboratory are investigated by the Department of Justice's Inspector General. His report is yet to be published. There is nothing to suggest that it will reflect in any way on the Lockerbie case, but, if anything relevant emerges from it, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will evaluate the implications most carefully.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the acquittal of Juval Aviv on charges relating to an allegedly fabricated security survey. I refer hon. Members to the answer given in the Official Report of 27 January 1997, column 70, and add that the Crown Office statement released in relation to the Maltese double cross in May 1995 did no more than set out certain matters of public record as they existed at the time.
In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are right to maintain United Nations sanctions against the Libyan Government. The answer is unequivocally yes. The petition warrants in respect of the two accused assert that the accused, while acting as Libyan Government intelligence officers, conspired to blow up a civil airliner, and caused the Lockerbie bomb to be placed on PA103.
It is entirely correct that the Government should look to the Libyan Government to assist with the investigation—in particular, to arrange for the two accused to be made available for trial in Scotland or the United States, and to pay appropriate compensation. Sanctions were imposed by the international community in 1992 and 1993 as a mark of its condemnation of Libya's failure to co-operate with the United Kingdom, United States and French authorities over Lockerbie, and the murderous bombing, allegedly also by Libyans, of a UTA aircraft in September 1989.
Libya's record of state sponsorship of terrorism is, rightly, a matter of deep and abiding concern. I freely acknowledge that Libya has provided some answers to our questions about its help to the Provisional IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. Libya at least offered France some belated assistance over the UTA bombing when it allowed the French examining magistrate, Judge Bruguière, to visit Libya last summer—and not before time. As a result of his investigations, the judge issued two further warrants against Libyan intelligence officers, bringing to a total of six the Libyan officials accused in connection with the UTA bombing. The French authorities have yet to declare their satisfaction with the Libyan co-operation.
I also remind the House that, in October 1996, the German authorities issued arrest warrants against four former Libyan intelligence officers in the case of the bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin in 1986, in which two people were killed and many were seriously injured.
Where will this sordid catalogue of Libyan involvement in acts of state-sponsored terrorism end? The Libyan Government have a lot to answer for—not least a huge stockpile of arms and explosives, including Semtex,

that is still being used by the Provisional IRA. The only reasonable conclusion is that the pressure of UN sanctions must remain for as long as Libya continues to defy the will of the international community.
I do not welcome our highly unsatisfactory stand-off with Libya, but it is not of our making. Let me explain why the current Libyan campaign to persuade observers of its good intentions concerning trial in a third country is actually a smokescreen for continued Libyan intransigence, and why it would be wrong for people of good will to be taken in by Libyan so-called offers to hold the Lockerbie trial in a third country.
Accepting a trial in a third country would mean that we had bowed to the demands of suspected terrorists over the location and nature of the court that tried them. It would also imply that we accepted the argument that the accused would not get a fair trial in Scotland. The Security Council determined that the trial should be held in Scotland or the United States. Quite apart from our objections of principle to a trial outside Scotland or the US, there would be enormous practical and legal difficulties.
Frankly, we do not believe that the Libyans intend that any such trial should take place. They argue that they cannot force the accused to leave Libya for trial in Scotland or the US in the absence of an extradition agreement with either country. I ask what powers they would have to ensure their attendance if we were to set up the arrangements for a so-called "Scottish" trial in The Hague when there is no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands?
I am conscious that my remarks will provide scant comfort to the relatives of the victims, and I am sorry about that. I assure them that we have looked hard for ways out of the current unsatisfactory solution, but so far we have been unable to identify a solution. We need a change of heart by the Libyan Government. If they are serious about wanting to rejoin the international community, they should surrender the two accused to a fair trial in Scotland or the United States.
As for opportunities for British firms, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Linlithgow if British firms are losing valuable export markets. I have received letters on the subject. I am sorry, too, if good friendships developed in better times with the Libyan people now seem to be stretched. The fault lies with the Libyan Government, not the Libyan people. Our difficulties go back even further than Lockerbie—to the murder on a London street of Woman Police Constable Fletcher in April 1984. We are not prepared to allow commercial considerations to compromise our position of principle on these two particularly sensitive issues.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Hanley: I do not have time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because of the contributions of his hon. Friends. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
We should not forget why the United Nations applied sanctions. Following Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait in August 1990, the UN imposed measures to ensure Iraq's full compliance with the terms of the relevant Security Council resolutions. That was necessary to secure compensation for Iraq's victims, to extract from


Iraq an account of the fate of those Kuwaitis and others missing since the occupation, and to ensure that Iraq would not again pose a threat to regional security.
The need for full Iraqi compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions remains just as strong today. Saddam Hussein remains a threat to regional security and to his own people. There are articles in newspapers today about Iraq's chemical threat, even to European countries. I believe that Saddam Hussein's brutal attack on Irbil last August, by military forces including heavy artillery and tanks against civilian targets, was a clear violation of Security Council resolution 688, which demands an end to the regime's repression of the Iraqi people.
It is now six years since Iraq invaded Kuwait and UN sanctions were imposed against Iraq, yet Iraq remains far from compliance with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. Of particular concern are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Before the Gulf war, Iraq possessed enough chemical and biological weapons to destroy the world's population several times over. Saddam Hussein's continued desire to procure and produce these lethal weapons poses a serious threat to the region.
The UN special commission was established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction programmes. We strongly support its work, and we welcome Ambassador Rolf Ekeus to the United Kingdom. The commission has made good progress, despite Iraq's repeated attempts to obstruct and deceive it. We must remain vigilant. The special commission's chairman, Ambassador Ekeus, has warned that he does not have the full picture. I doubt that Iraq will ever tell the whole story while Saddam Hussein remains. The prospect of him retaining these horrific weapons does not bear thinking about. Until Iraq decides to comply fully with the demands of the Security Council's sanctions, they must remain.
I share hon. Members' concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Sadly, Saddam Hussein does not share this concern. It is his failure to meet the UN's demands

which prolongs the Iraqis' suffering. A relaxation of sanctions would not help the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein does not care for them. Experience shows that, if he were allowed to renew uncontrolled exports of oil, he would use the revenue not for food and medicine but to rearm and threaten the region again.
I remind Opposition Members that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions. We continue to support the efforts of the UN and non-governmental organisations in Iraq. Since April 1991, the United Kingdom has contributed over £92 million in aid, including last year £1.7 million on activities that directly benefit Iraqi children. I pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom's NGOs in northern Iraq.
We have done much to help alleviate the Iraqi people's suffering. As I have said, we have provided over £90 million in aid since 1991, making us the second largest donor. We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986, which allows Iraq to export $1 billion-worth of oil every 90 days, mainly for the purchase of humanitarian supplies. Saddam Hussein's failure to agree to its implementation for over 18 months has caused further unnecessary suffering to the Iraqi people.
I am delighted that the first consignment of humanitarian goods, purchased under Security Council resolution 986, is due to reach Iraq, possibly this weekend. That is good news for the Iraqi people. We want the benefit from Security Council resolution 986 to go to the Iraqi people, not the regime. The resolution contains safeguards to ensure that that happens. The UN has rightly insisted on implementing strictly the safeguards despite Iraqi attempts to undermine them. Each Iraqi should receive a significant increase in his—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.